The Court emphasized the necessity of adherence to statutory requirements in assessing land applications under specific conservation rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) To issue a writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate Writ, Order setting aside P-4 order in file No.1250/2025 in application No. 153/2024/255165 dated 14.07.2025 and directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P-3 application afresh taking note of the observations made above and also the binding decisions of this Court within a time frame.

(b) To issue writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the 1^st respondent to dispose Exhibit P-3 application for removing the property from data bank, within a time frame in the light of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Court in the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275] , and issue orders to make changes in the data-bank, BTR and other Revenue records by changing the nature of the lands covered by Ext P-3 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 after hearing the petitioner (c) To grant such other appropriate reliefs to the petitioner, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice (d) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents (e) Award cost of these proceedings”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 1^st 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 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.

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

1. Ext.P4 order is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P3 Form – 5 application 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 satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the authorised officer opts to personally inspe