The court mandated that all relevant evidence, including scientific data, must be considered when evaluating applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"a) To issue a Writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P9 Order and quash the same.

b) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction commanding the 2^nd Respondent to reconsider the Ext.P-4 application and pass orders afresh allowing the same on the basis of Ext.P-6 report issued by the 6^th respondent with regard to the property as on 2008.

c) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the 6^th respondent to the 2nd and 5^th respondent with regard to the nature and lie of the petitioners property as on 2008.

d) To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.

e) To pass such other appropriate orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and ends of justice."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner submitted a Form-5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2008). The same was rejected originally, and the petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing WP(C) No.34633 of 2024. This Court set aside the same as per Ext.P7 judgment and directed to reconsider the Form-5 application with specific directions. Thereafter, the Form-5 application was again rejected as per Ext.P9. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P7 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the Ext.P7 judgment.

" 3. I have carefully gone through the records. On going through the Ext.P5 order which is impugned in this case, it is discernible that the order has been passed, simply accepting the report of the Agricultural Officer without any specific reference to the contentions raised by the petitioner as to the nature of the property. In Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC Online 991], this Court laid down the principles relating to the procedure and the materials to be considered while deciding the application on Form-5. In paragraph No.8 the following observations are made by this Court.

“8.This Court is of the view that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not justified in taking a decision on merits on the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5. The most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation. The Revenue Divisional Officer, if he was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSREC. Ext.P8 proceedings to the extent it does not take a final decision on Form-5 application cannot stand the scrutiny of law.”

4. After considering all the relevant aspects, including the Ext.P5 order, I am of the view that it requires reconsideration as it lacks proper consideration of the materials placed on record. Besides, the petitioner obtained the Ext.P6 report of the KSREC, which is also a relevant document for resolving the dispute involved in this case.

In such circumstances, Ext.P5 order passed by the 2^nd respondent is quashed with a direction to the 2^nd respondent or the authorized officer under Section 2 (xvA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008, reconsider Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner. It is further directed that while taking Ext.P4, the said respondent shall also take into account Ext.P6 report of the KSREC, which shall be placed by the petitioner before the said authority and a proper decision thereon shall be taken after adverting to the contentions of the petitioner and by referring to the contents of Ext.