A competent authority must independently assess land suitability for paddy cultivation, adhering to the legal standards set forth in prior case laws.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“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 21.95 Ares of properties comprised in Block No. 28, Re-survey No. 403/9 of Arakkapady Village in Kunnathunadu 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 Agriculture Officer to report the actual status of the subject land before this Hon’ble court within a time frame.

d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 3rd respondent to issue fresh orders on the application in Form 5, strictly following Sub rule (4E) and 4F of Rule 4 of the 2008 Rules.

e) Dispense the petitioner from producing the English translation of the vernacular documents produced in the writ petition.

f) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting Ext.P2 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 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 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.P3 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent / authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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 petitione