The authorized officer must comply with statutory requirements when assessing land for exclusion from conservation protocols; failure to do so invalidates decisions.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash and set aside the order of the Deputy Collector (RR) dated 19/05/2025 (Exhibit P-5) as illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law.

2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to remove the subject property covered by Exhibit P-1 and P-5 in , Mulavukad Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, from the data bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, in accordance with Exhibit P-2, the recommendations of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (Exhibit P-3) and the KSREC report (Exhibit P-4).

3. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to reclassify the subject property as purayidom (dry land) in the revenue records, consistent with in accordance with Exhibit P-2 the recommendations of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (Exhibit P-3) and the KSREC report (Exhibit P-4)

4. Grant such other and further 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 2^nd 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. Even though, 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 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 can be set aside.

6. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, in paragraph No.4 of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, it is clearly stated that there is no mangroves and the finding in the impugned order is incorrect. It will be better to extract paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit:

“4. It is submitted that the Village Officer has reported that the land is devoid of any mangrove (Kandal) vegetation or any species of trees typically found in the riverbank environment. At present, the area is characterized by the growth of grass and wild shrubs. Based on the local inquiries conducted during the inspection by the Village Officer, it is understood that the property has been in its current reclaimed state since prior to the year 2008. As per the Village Officer’s report, all the survey numbers mentioned above from a single, contiguous plot of land. Fur