A proper assessment of land suitability for paddy cultivation is required under statutory rules before making any exclusion orders.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P5, and Set aside the same, and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd Respondents to obtaining images of the petitioners property from Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) and Follow the mandatory procedure to be followed as spelt out in Rule 4 F of the Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rule and reconsider the Exhibit-P4 application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rules , 2008 in respect of the land comprised in Exhibit P2 and remove the petitioners property from data bank.

(ii) To declare that the Petitioner is entitled to get conversion of the nature of land as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rules , 2008.

(iii) Please to dispense with the production of translation of documents which is produced as Exhibit-P1 and P3 and P5 (iv) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting Ext.P3 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 solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has directly inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures, as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. 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 is to be set aside.

6. The Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order is passed after inspecting the property. But, from the order itself it is clear that the inspection is conducted from the office of the authorized officer, not directly by the authorized officer.

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

1. Ext. P5 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent / authorised o to reconsider Ext.P3 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