The court emphasized the need for a speaking order by the authorized officer when evaluating applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P-9 and quashing the same.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the property of the petitioner should be excluded from the Data Bank for the reason that there is no paddy cultivation or it comes within the definition of Wetland under the Act.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the land use pattern has been drastically changed by Highway or residential buildings and there is no evidence of any cultivation of paddy based on Ext.P6 report of KSRSEC.

iv) to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language.

v) and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including costs.” (SIC)

2. The petitioner filed a Form-5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008. The same was rejected as evident by Ext.P7. The same was challenged before this Court by filing WP(C) No.1776/2024. This Court directed the authorised officer to reconsider the matter as per Ext.P8 judgment. Now, Ext.P9 order is passed, again rejecting the Form-5 application. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P9 order. After narrating the facts in paragraph 1 and 2, the report of the Agricultural Officer is extracted thereafter. Subsequently, the definition clause of Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules is also extracted. The KSREC report is also extracted. Subsequently, it is stated that an inspection is conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Nothing is mentioned about the details of the inspection conducted by the authorised officer. Moreover, a perusal of the impugned order would not show that the authorised officer considered whether the property is cultivable with paddy. The Government Pleader made available the inspection report. I don’t want to make any observation about the same. The authorised officer cannot supplement something beyond Ext.P9 order by producing a report of the inspection. This Court in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ], observed that, when a Form-5 application is considered, it is the duty of the authorised officer to consider the matter on merit and pass a speaking order, with an independent assessment of the facts. I am not satisfied about the manner in which the Form-5 application is considered in Ext.P9 order, even thought it is a second round of litigation. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P9 is to be set aside and the Form-5 application is to be considered once again.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. Exhibit P9 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent / authorised o reconsider the Form-5 application in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Vinumon’s case (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-