The authorized officer must independently assess land suitability under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules to make lawful determinations regarding classification.

JUDGMENT

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

" i. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing Exhibit P4 Orders as unjust and illegal;

ii. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or, order, or direction, quashing Exhibit P2 to the extent to which the land of the petitioner is included as wet land in the Data Bank prepared by the 4^th respondent;

iii. To declare the land in question does not fall under the purview of a paddy land or wet land defined in the Act and therefore liable to be removed from the Data Bank;

iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the 3^rd respondent to pass fresh orders removing the entries regarding the petitioner’s property from the Data Bank, after strictly following the procedures prescribed in law and take steps to publish an erratum notification in Kerala Gazette for the same, within a time frame of two months or such period as this Hon’ble Court may fix;

v. Pass any other orders or directions that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice.

vi. Dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language.

vii. Award cost."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner submitted two Form - 5 applications as far as two separate properties are concerned and both those were dismissed and those orders were produced as Ext.P4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by him 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. 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 Officer, 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. Government Pleader submitted that KSREC report is extracted in the impugned order. But, a perusal of the same would show that the property as of 2008 is fallow land. Since the property is fallow land, the manner in which the Form-5 application is to be considered is set out in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ekm and Others [2020 (2) KHC 94] . The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

" 22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a parti