Authorized officer's adherence to statutory inspection requirements is mandatory for validity of land classification decisions.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P6 order dated 08.07.2025 issued by the 1^st Respondent and quash the same;

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st Respondent to reconsider the Exhibit P4 Form 5 application submitted by the Petitioner for removal of the Petitioner’s property having an extent of 21.45 Ares in Re-Survey No. 289/1/5 of Nilambur Village, Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram District from the Data Bank, in the light of Exhibit P5 report issued by the 5^th Respondent, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court; iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the Petitioner’s property is not paddy land within the meaning of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, and consequently direct the Respondents to permit correction of the land classification and reassessment of the property as dry land/garden land in the Basic Tax Register; and iv. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 1^st 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 inspection conducted from the office of the authorised 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.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the adjacent property owner filed a Form – 5 application and the same was allowed as evident from Ext.P7. If that be the case, the authorised officer will consider the same also while considering the Form – 5 application. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside.

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

1. Ext.P6 order is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P4 Form – 5 application 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 t