An application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, to remove land from the data bank must be granted if it is proven that the land was not fit for paddy cultivation as of 2008, supported by credible evidence such as an Advocate Commissioner's report.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order calling the records of Ext.P6 order dated 27.06.2024 of 3rd respondent and quash the same holding that the same is illegal. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order directing the 3rd respondent to allow the Ext.P2 application and remove the property from the data bank, since the same is not a paddy or wet land as per the report of KSRSEC.

iii) To declare that the property of the petitioner is not a paddy or wet land as per Ext.P1coupled with Ext.P4 report of KSRSEC, and liable to be removed from the data bank published by the

4th respondent.

iv) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner filed a Form-5 application under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The same was rejected originally and the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.258/2024. This Court set aside that order and directed the authorised officer to reconsider the matter. Thereafter, again the Form-5 application is rejected as per Ext.P6 order. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, after perusing Ext.P6, this Court observed that there is finding of facts by the authorised officer and this Court cannot interfere with the same invoking the powers under Section Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ready to take out a Commission and accordingly an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. Now, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and submitted a detailed report. This Court perused the same.

5. The Advocate Commissioner submitted about the physical condition of the petitioner’s land in detail in the report. It is stated that there are two residential buildings seen on the south-east side of the petitioner’s land. The land in which those residential building seen is a converted dry land. It is also stated that the soil in the petitioner’s land was found to be laterite soil. It is further stated that the land was found to be very firm in nature. There was a brick manufacturing unit functioning on the petitioner’s property more than 50 years back. The soil and clay required for the bricks were said to be extracted from the same land which is considered to be the reason for the present firmness of the property is the submission of the Advocate Commissioner.

6. As far as the work memo regarding the question, whether there are any trees standing in the petitioner’s property and if so, the number, nature, approximate age and location of such trees, the Commissioner reported that the property contains 125 Mahagony trees, 3 Coconut trees, 1 Malabar Tamarind tree to the southern boundary and 3 Pink Shower trees to the eastern boundary of the land. 1 Bread Fruit tree is also found by the Commissioner on the southern boundary along with 1 Portia tree. Two Bamboo Groves consisting of 60 bamboo stems were also found by the Commissioner. In the report, it is stated that, approximately 75 trees are having range of 36-38 inches of diameter that means the tree is considered to be a mature tree aged more than 40 years. The other details of Coconut trees, Malabar Tamarind tree, Bread Fruit tree, Pink Shower tree, Portia tree and Bamboo groves are also mentioned.

7. As far as the question, whe