Independent assessment required for land classification under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

JUDGMENT

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

" i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P5 order and quash the same.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application and pass orders afresh taking note of Ext.P6 KSREC report.

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

iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner filed 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 originally rejected by the Authorised Officer, and it was challenged before this Court by filing WP(C) No.2092 of 2024. This Court, as per Ext.P4 judgment, set aside the same and directed to reconsider Form - 5 application. Thereafter, the Form-5 application is again rejected, as per Ext. P5. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P4 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion from the Ext.P4 judgment.

" 3. The petitioner states that the said property will not come within the definition of paddy land or wetland. However, it has been wrongly included as ‘Nanja’ in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner, therefore, filed Ext. P3 application in Form-5 under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by Ext.P5 order, rejected the application solely relying on the report of the LLMC and the Agricultural Officer. In Ext. P5, the Revenue Divisional Officer has stated that the property is waterlogged and swamp land and if the property is converted, the same will adversely affect the agricultural and environment of the nearby lands. The petitioner submits that the subject property is not a swamp land or any other kind of wetland. It is also submitted that there is no paddy cultivation in or around the subject property. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext. P5.

4. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as paddy land or wet land is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the the Act. On a perusal of Ext.P5, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the date coming into force of the Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank.

5. This Court has held in the decision in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591] that, the Revenue Divisional Officer must, while considering an application for removal of a property from the Data Bank consider the question whether the land was a paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270] has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from the Data Bank, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to remove the land from Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer being the competent authority, has to independently assess the status of the land and come to a conclusion that removal of the land from Data Ba