The authorized officer must independently assess land suitability for paddy cultivation when processing Form-5 applications under relevant rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or direction, to call for records leading to Ext.P1 order and set aside the same.

b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner for correcting the data Bank based on the order and Ext.P4 report of the 6th respondent, within such time as may be pleased by this honourable court after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

c) Petitioner also prays that this hon’ble court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the document produced in the vernacular language.

And d) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting the 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 based on the reports of the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer. Even though, KSREC report is available, the same is not properly considered by the authorised officer. 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 can be set aside.

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

1. Ext.P1 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent / authorised o directed to reconsider the 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 application shall be considered and disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.

4. If the Authorised Officer is either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order, as directed by this Court in the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ], shall be passed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHN