The authorized officer must assess land suitability for paddy cultivation before making decisions on data bank inclusion.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash Ext.P6 ii) to declare that the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 is liable to be removed from the data bank as applied for in Ext.P3.

iii) to command the first respondent to remove the petitioner’s land covered by Ext.P1, from the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act .

iv) to declare that the petitioner’s property is not liable to be included in the data bank as it is described as a converted land even in Ext.P2(a) data bank.

v) to declare that the property of the petitioner covered by Exts.P1 and Ext.P3 is not a land liable to be included in the data bank.

vi) exempt the petitioner from producing the English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this writ petition and the petitioner further undertakes that they are ready and willing to produce English Translation of Malayalam documents as and when required;

vii) award cost to the petitioner;

viii) issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the 1^st respondent rejecting Ext.P3 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.P6 order is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent / authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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