The competent authority must independently assess land characteristics in accordance with statutory requirements for paddy cultivation exclusion.

JUDGMENT

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

"i. Call for the records relating to Ext.P5 order of the 2^nd Respondent Deputy Collector (L.A) Malappuram and to quash the same order by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writs, Orders or Directions.

ii. Declare that the property of the Petitioner having a total extent of 2.226 Ares comprised, split up into 2 extents of 2.145 Ares comprised in Re-Sy. No.301/6-3, and 0.081 Ares Comprised in Re-Sy 301/6-4 situated at Block 25, Neduva Village, at Tirurangadi Taluk in Malappuram District is dry/garden land, having all the characterisation of Purayidam and therefore the inclusion of 2.145 Ares of the property in the data bank is liable to be excluded.

iii. Issue such other and further writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner 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.

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 based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Eventhough KSREC report is available, the same is not properly considered by the authorised officer. 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.P5 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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 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 petitioner.

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) KLT 275