The court emphasized the necessity of statutory compliance in assessing land suitability for exclusion from a data bank under conservation rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“I. Quash Exhibit-P3 issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari;

II. Direct the first respondent to delete the 0.1578 hectors of land comprised in Survey Block No. 221, Re-Survey No. 843/38 in Palakkad-II Village, Palakkad Taluk & Palakkad District from the data bank for the area;

III. Direct the first respondent to reconsider and pass appropriate orders on the application for correction of the mistake in the data bank submitted by the petitioner afresh after conducting a physical inspection of the plot and in view of the relevant provisions and government orders;

IV. Declare that 0.1578 hectors of land comprised in Survey Block No. 221, Re-Survey No. 843/38 in Palakkad-II Village, Palakkad Taluk & Palakkad District is not a land to be included in the data bank for the area;

V. To dispense with the production of the translated copies of the documents in vernacular language;

and VI. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the 1^st respondent rejecting Ext.P2 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 counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Form-5 application filed by the adjacent property owner is allowed as per Ext.P4. I don’t want to make any observation about the same.

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

1. Ext. P3 order is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent / authorised o to reconsider Ext.P2 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 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 inspect the property, the ap