Authorized officers must comply with statutory requirements for land assessments under conservation rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exhibits P3 and P4 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law;

ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to reconsider the Petitioner’s application submitted in Form 5 afresh, in the light of the LLMC report and the KSRSEC scientific report, and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

iii. Declare that the Petitioner’s property having an extent of 6 Ares 48 Sqm in Survey No. 35/54-2 of Vallivattom Village, Thrissur District, is not paddy land or wetland as defined under the Act and is not liable to be retained in the Data Bank;

iv. Direct the Respondents to make necessary corrections in the Data Bank and revenue records by removing the classification of the Petitioner’s land as ‘Nilam’;

v. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by him under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner filed two form-5 applications for removing his property from the data bank. Both applications were rejected as per Exts.P3 and P4.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused the impugned order. I am of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The impugned order was passed by the authorised officer solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has directly inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. There is no independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date by the authorised officer. Moreover, the authorised officer has not considered whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.

5. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2023 (4) KHC 524 ], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [ 2023 (2) KLT 386 ], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [ 2021 (1) KLT 433 ], observed that the competent authority is obliged to assess the nature, lie and character of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property merits exclusion from the data bank. The impugned order is not in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in the above judgments. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Exts.P3 and P4 orders are set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Form – 5 application in accordance with the law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner, if not already called for.

3. If satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of such pictures. On