Proper evaluation under statutory guidelines is essential for land inclusion decisions, ensuring adherence to previous judicial directives.

JUDGMENT

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

" i. To call for all records leading to the Exhibit P10 order issued by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or by any other appropriate writ, direction or order.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the respondents to remove petitioner’s property in Re Sy No. 64/3 and 64/4 of Karuvanthiruthi Village from the data bank of Feroke Municipality.

iii. To call for all records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P3 data bank prepared by the 7^th respondent and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or by any other appropriate writ, direction or order.

iv. Declare that the property of the petitioner in Re.Sy.No. 64/3 and 64/4 of Karuvanthiruthi Village included by Exhibit P3 in data bank is liable to be deleted in the interest of justice.

v. To pass any other order or directions this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

vi. To permit the petitioner to dispense with production of translations of the exhibits in vernacular language along with the Writ Petition."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner filed a Form - 5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2008). The same was rejected, and the petitioner challenged the same before this court by filing WP(C) No.23956 of 2023. This Court, as per Ext.P6 judgment, set aside the same and directed to reconsider Form - 5 application. Thereafter, Ext.P10 order is passed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality and the Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P10 order. In the first paragraph, the facts upto Ext.P6 judgment are mentioned. Thereafter, in one sentence, the Form - 5 application is again rejected, stating that, as per the KSREC report, the property was not converted before 2008. This is not the manner in which a Form - 5 application is to be reconsidered, especially when this court directed to reconsider with specific directions. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the Ext.P6 judgment:

" 10. I have perused Ext.P3 order of the Sub Collector. The Sub Collector has rejected the application of the petitioner relying on a report dated 05.08.2021 of the Village Officer. Ext.P3 proceeds to state that since the land of the petitioner is water logged and since it is lying at a level lower than the nearby lands, exclusion of the said land would affect environment.

11. The fact that the land is getting water logged during rainy season and it is situated in a lower level, are not grounds sufficient to conclude that the land is fit for paddy cultivation or that the land was a paddy land. It is evident from Ext.P2 report of the Village Officer that the Village Officer as early on 27.08.2021, had advised that 2.295 Ares of the land of the petitioner can be removed from the Data Bank.

12. Ext.P4 Photographs produced by the petitioner would show that there are standing coconut and other trees in the property of the petitioner, which looks old and planted prior to the year 2008. When the facts being so, it would have been only just and proper for the Sub Collector to obtain a KSREC report for considering the matter.

13. Going through the pleadings and the documents produced by the petitioner, I am of the view that the Sub Collector shall reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of setting aside Ext.P3 and directing that if the petitioner submits an application for KSREC report to the Agricultural Officer concerned payin