The ruling underscores the importance of accurate consideration of land classification and representation in administrative decisions.

J U D G M E N T

Heard Smt.Nandana Suresh representing Sri.Avaneesh Koyikkara, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the property extending 8.20 Ares comprised in Re.sy.No.130/18 (old Sy. No.241/2) of Nellanad Village in Thiruvananthapuram District. This property was seen included in the data bank as paddy land. According to the petitioner, the property was converted much prior to the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . Therefore, he filed an application seeking removal of the property from the data bank. The application filed as above is rejected by the order at Ext.P4 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). It is seeking to challenge the aforementioned order, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. A reading of Ext.P4 order shows that the RDO has sought to obtain a report/image from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC). However, a reading of the order shows that with reference to the findings in the KSREC report, the RDO has observed that there were trees (coconut trees, arecanut trees etc.,) which were at least 20 years of age seen in the property. Similarly, it is only with respect to the details from the KSREC report that the RDO has stated that even during 2003 there were only crops in the property. The report of the KSREC also suggests that the property only had mixed vegetation.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the consideration made in the Ext.P4 does not appear to be correct. Therefore, the order at Ext.P4 requires to be set aside. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside Ext.P4 order and directing the RDO or the authorised officer to reconsider the issue afresh with specific reference to the findings in the KSREC report and also to carry out a physical visit of the property, if found necessary. Orders are to be passed as above as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, with a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The RDO also to take note of the principles laid down by this Court in Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KHC 540] while passing orders as above.

Sd/-