Administrative decisions on land use require adherence to procedural fairness and full consideration of prior evaluations and reports.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. K. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt. Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner is in the 2^nd round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner’s application in Form-5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, was rejected by Ext.P5 Order dated 15.07.2021 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The afore order was challenged before this Court by filing WP(C) No.1538/2022. By Ext.P7 Judgment dated 05.08.2022, this Court found that the Impugned Order was issued without granting the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. This Court also made reference to the lie and nature of the property as is seen from the photographs produced before the Court. It is straight away noticed that the very same photographs are enclosed along with this writ petition as Ext.P6. On the basis of the afore discussion, this Court by Ext.P7 Judgment, set aside the earlier order at Ext.P5 and directed fresh consideration. The resultant order is the one at Ext.P9 dated

18.10.2022. A perusal of the afore order would show that according to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the property after clearing the bushes, etc., “could be used for Paddy cultivation”.

3. However, the question as to whether the property was converted earlier to the 2008 Act, with reference to the lie and nature of the property has not been addressed while issuing the afore order. In so far as the petitioner has sought for removal of the property from the data bank, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have obtained the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC). But, this was admittedly not obtained.

4. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Authorised Officer.

5. Therefore, this writ petition will stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P9. The Revenue Divisional Officer or the Authorised Officer would re-consider the Form-5 Application filed by the petitioner after obtaining the report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) also, for which fee requires to be remitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Revenue Divisional Officer or the Authorised Officer would also be entitled to carry out a physical verification of the property.

This writ petition is disposed as above.

Sd/-