Proper procedural adherence is essential in administrative decisions, reinforced by the necessity for clear justification.

JUDGMENT

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

"(i) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P14 order passed by 3^rd respondent.

(ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing 3^rd respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass orders on Ext.P7 within a time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble Court, after affording reasonable opportunity for hearing to the petitioner.

(iii) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with translation of the documents produced in vernacular language.

(iv) Any other appropriate writ order or direction as the Hon’ble Court may pleased to grant in the circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner filed a Form – 5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The same was originally rejected. The petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P.(C) No.12942 of 2023. This Court as per Ext.P12 judgment, directed the authorised officer to reconsider the matter. Thereafter, Ext.P14 order was passed rejecting the Form – 5 application once again. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P3 report of the Agricultural Officer. A perusal of the same would show that the Agricultural Officer reported that the property was converted 20 years back. Ext.P13 is the KSREC report. It will be better to extract the observations and conclusion in Ext.P13 report:

“OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSION The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2008, 2010, 2011,2018 and 2024 for the survey plot.

As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot

270/2 was observed as paddy land. The plot was observed under crops/paddy land with partially mixed vegetation towards south side in the data of 2008. The same land use pattern was observed to continue in the data of 2010 and 2011. The data of 2018 shows the plot under crops/paddy land with partially scattered mixed vegetation/plantation and a construction activity towards south side. The data of 2024 shows the plot under crops/paddy land with scattered mixed vegetation/plantation and a building/structure towards south side. ”

5. This Court perused Ext.P14 order. Except extracting the conclusions of the KSREC report, there is no independent assessment by the authorised officer. The Authorised Officer has not stated the reasons for rejecting Ext.P3 report of the Agricultural Officer. Moreover, this Court as per Ext.P12 judgment, directed the authorised officer to reconsider the matter. The same was also not considered by the authorised officer. This Court in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275] considered the manner in which a Form – 5 application is to be considered. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the authorised officer should reconsider the Form – 5 application submitted by the petitioner once again.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Ext.P14 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised o reconsider the Form – 5 application afresh in the light of Exts.P3, P12, P13 and also in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Vinumon v.

District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275] , as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-