The authorized officer must independently assess land suitability for paddy cultivation before making exclusion decisions from the data bank.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Call for the records relating to Exts. P9 and P11 orders of the 2nd Respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda 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 an extent of 40.47 Ares of land, comprised in Survey No. 172 of Thrikkur Village of Mukundapuram Taluk in Thrissur District is dry/garden land, having all the characterisation of Purayidam and therefore the inclusion 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. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner limited his challenge to Ext.P11 order. Ext.P11 is an order passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting Ext.P10 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. Even though, 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 O 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 can be set aside.

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

1. Ext.P11 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent / authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P10 Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner, 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 the judgment da