Judicial compliance with statutory requirements in land assessments is critical to uphold property rights under environmental regulations.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"(i) Call for the records of the case from the 1st Respondent leading to the issuance of Ext.P10 and quash/set aside the same by means of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st Respondent to effect necessary correction in the Data Bank by excluding the subject property-18.39 Ares comprised in Re-Sy. Block No.13, Re- Sy. No.600/1-2 of Thodiyoor Village, Karunagapply Taluk from the Data Bank and to issue consequential orders in that regard within a short time being fixed by this Hon’ble Court to enable the Petitioners to obtain necessary changes in the basic tax register;

(iii) Declare that the subject property having an extent of 18.39 Ares in Re-Survey Block No.13, Re-Survey No.600/1-2 of Thodiyoor Village, Karunagappally Taluk, Kollam District, is a converted land/plantation land and does not fall within the purview of “paddy land” or “wetland” as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008;

(iv) Dispense with the filing of true English translation of Exhibits which are in vernacular language;

(v) Grant the Petitioners such other incidental reliefs as this Hon’ble court may deem fit, just and necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case; and (vi) To allow this Writ Petition (Civil) with costs to the Petitioners ”

[SIC]

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

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

1. Ext.P10 order is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent/authorised o to reconsider Ext.P7 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 ar