The competent authority must independently assess land characterization for compliance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules.

JUDGMENT

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

" a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P3 and to quash the same.

b) Issue a declaration that the lands having an extent of 03.25 Ares of properties comprised in Block No.11, Re-survey No. 73/2-5 of Kureekkad Village in Kanayannoor Taluk is not a paddy land as defined in Section 2 (xii) of the 2008 Act.

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the competent among the respondents 2 and 3, to consider afresh the application in Form 5, Exhibit P2, taking note of the observation in Exhibit P4 and the law declared in Sudheesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer , 2023(2) KLT 386 , as expeditiously as possible within a time as dictated by this Hon’ble Court.

d) Dispense the petitioner from producing the English translation of the vernacular documents produced alongwith the writ petition.

e) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, for the ends of justice. ” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by her 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 solely based on the report of the Agricultural 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 Officer, 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 is to be set aside.

6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order is passed after inspecting the property. But, a perusal of the order itself shows that the inspection is conducted by the office staff of the Authorised Officer and not by the Authorised Officer himself.

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

1. Ext.P3 proceedings is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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 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 m