Court expounded on the necessity for statutory compliance in land petitions and independent findings regarding land character.

JUDGMENT

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

"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records leading to Ext.P10 proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated

04.05.2024 and quash the original of the same. (ii) Declare that the property covered by Ext.P1, P2 and also P3 proceedings is one which is reclaimed long before the commencement of Act 2008 and hence liable to be deleted/excluded from the databank as sought for the petitioner and issue a declaration invoking the dictum laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Salim C.K. & Another vs. State of Kerala & Ors. Reported in 2017(1) KHC 394.

(iii) Declare that the property in question is not a paddy land or wet land going by Ext.P9 report of the KSREC and the ground realities as they exist, and per contra that the property is part of a larger extent of land covered by Ext. P3 proceedings of the Board of Revenue dated 14.12.1987, which is already put to such other beneficial use as can be discerned from Ext P4 photographs, Ext P5 certificate issued by the Local Authority, Ext.P6 site plan and also Ext. P8 report of the 6^th respondent.

(iv) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4^th respondent to re- consider the application submitted by the petitioner and delete the property from the databank adverting to Ext. P3 proceedings, Ext P5 and also the dictum laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023(4) KHC 524].

(v) English translation of the vernacular exhibits shall be produced as and when required and as directed by this Hon’ble court.

(vi) Grant such other reliefs which this Honorable court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, including the cost of these proceedings."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the

4^th 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.

6. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the property is covered by Ext.P3 order passed in accordance with the Kerala Land Utilisation Order,