The competent authority must assess land suitability for paddy cultivation with independent findings as per rules.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order or direction called for records person to Exhibit P13 dated 13.12.2023 of the 3^rd respondnet and quash the same ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order of direction, directing 3^rd respondent to remove the Petitioner’s 34.76 Ares of land in Re.Sy No.190/6-3 in block no.11 of Kanipayyur Village in Kunnamkulam Taluk from the data bank. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ , order or direction, commanding 3^rd Respondent to re-consider and pass orders on Exhibit P12, form- 5 applications forth with in the light of earlier reports submitted by the 5^th respondent iv) dispense with the English translation of documents in vernacular language. And v) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by the petitioners under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioners is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioners.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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. Ext.P13 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P12 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 petitioners, 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 the other hand, if the authorised officer opts to personally inspect the property, the application shall be considered and disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners.

4. If the authorised officer is either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order as directed by this court in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6)