The assessment of land suitability for paddy cultivation must be substantiated by comprehensive evaluations, including prior agricultural use and relevant statutory principles.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the owner in enjoyment and possession of an extent of 41.27 Ares of land in re-Survey No.6/2 (old Survey 6/12) of Kuttikkattoor Village, pursuant to Ext.P1 document of the year 1993. Admittedly, the afore property was remaining as a barren land for more than 30 years and is totally uncultivable. But even thereafter, the petitioner states that the property was included in the data bank under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008. The petitioner submitted a Form 5 application, under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, and by the order at Ext.P4 dated 01.07.2021, the prayer made by the petitioner was rejected. The order at Ext.P4 was issued after obtaining a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC), as evidenced by Ext.P5 dated 11.02.2021. The petitioner challenged the afore order by filing W.P.(C) No.12364 of 2022. By Ext.P6 judgment dated 06.06.2023, this Court has disposed of the afore writ petition with the following findings:-

“4. Reliance is placed on the decisions of a Division Bench of this Court in Jafarkhan v. K.A. Kochumakkar and others [2012 (1) KHC 523] and pointedly on a decision of this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association v. The District Collector, Ernakulam [2020 (2) KHC 94). The learned counsel for the petitioner would place specific reliance on paragraphs Nos.20, 21 and 22 of the said judgment to contend that in case a property has been included in the data bank as wetland, it must answer the definition of wetland as contained in Section 2 (xviii) and if not, orders exempting the property are liable to be passed.

5. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side and in the light of the definition of wetland in Section 2 (xviii) of the 2008 Act as also the decisions of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the findings in Ext.P6 are unsupported by any material and are totally unjustifiable.

6. The impugned order is therefore set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 after obtaining due instructions from the Village Officer and after ascertaining the actual categorization of the land in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioner shall also be put on notice and heard before orders are passed. Appropriate orders shall be passed after considering the KSREC report as also looking into the Basic Tax Register and all relevant documents and obtaining reports of the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued the order at Ext.P7 dated 18.11.2023. The order at Ext.P7 also refused to accept the request made by the petitioner. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P7, as above.

2. I have heard Sri.T.Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Anish Antony Anathazhath, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.S.L.Sylaja, learned Government Pleader.

3. As already noticed, the petitioner filed an application in Form 5, seeking the property referred above to be removed from the data bank. The first order issued is the one at Ext.P4. The report of the KSREC is available at Ext.P5. a reference to this report shows the following observations were made by the said authority:-

“The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data