The competent authority must comply with statutory requirements regarding land evaluation for exclusion from paddy data banks.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i. Declare that the petitioner’s property comprised in Re Sy.No.137/8-1, of Oorakam Village in Malappuram District is not a paddy land which comes under the purview of Conservation of Paddy and Wetlands Act , 2008;

ii. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or order calling of the records leading up to the Ext. P6 order issued by the 2^nd respondent, and quash the same;

iii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to pass an order to remove the petitioner’s property from data bank within a time frame stipulated by this Hon’ble Court; Or iv. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to re- consider the Form 5 application bearing No.3/2023/281873 dated 16.08.2023 and pass an appropriate order within a time frame stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

v. To dispense with the production of English translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with the Writ Petition in the interest of justice.

vi. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by him 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. 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 inMuraleedharan 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.

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

1. Ext.P6 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised o reconsider Ext.P5 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 months from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the authorised officer op