Authorised officer must independently assess land nature on 12.08.2008 using inspection or satellite imagery before rejecting exclusion from paddy land databank.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records leading to Ext.P7 proceedings dated 23.10.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent and quash the original of the same.

(ii) Declare that the property covered by Ext.P1 &P2 is one which is reclaimed long before the commencement of Act 2008 and hence liable to be deleted/ excluded from the databank as sought for by the petitioner.

(iii) Declare that the property in question is not a paddy land or a wet land as defined u/s. 2(xii) or Sec.2(xviii) of the Act 28 of 2008 and grant a declaration to that effect applying the dictum laid down by this Hon’ble courtSalim C.K. & Another vs. State of Kerala & Ors. Reported in 2017(1) KHC 394 and taking note of Ext. P8 Judgment.

(iv) Issue any appropriate order or direction reiterating the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble court in Mather Nagar Residents Association Case reported in 2020(2) KHC 94 declaring that even a property left fallow cannot be treated as paddy land/wet land and that the prohibition envisaged under the Act is only in respect of paddy land and wet land as on the date of commencement of the Act.

(v) English Translation of the Exhibits in vernacular shall be furnished as and when required by the court.

(vi) Grant such other reliefs which this Honorable court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, including the cost of these proceedings."

[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. Eventhough, KSREC report is available, the same is not properly considered by the authorized 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 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.P7 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised o 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 the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner, if not already called for.

3. If satellite pictures are called for, the a