The authorised officer must independently assess the nature and character of land as of the relevant date (12.08.2008) via personal inspection or satellite imagery under Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, rather than relying solely on reports.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 22375 of 2026
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2026

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext P3 order and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext P2 application and pass orders afresh after obtaining a report from the 6th respondent, KSREC with regard to the nature of the property as on 2008.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 6th respondent to file a report before the 2nd and 5th respondent with regard to nature and lie of the petitioner’s property in 2008.
iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.
v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the 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 ofÏcer 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 ofÏcer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The impugned order was passed by the authorised ofÏcer solely based on the report of the Agricultural OfÏcer. There is no indication in the order that the authorised ofÏcer 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 ofÏcer. Moreover, the authorised ofÏcer 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 OfÏcer [2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional O Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional OfÏcer/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.P3 order is set aside.

2. The 2nd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P2 Form – 5 application in accordance with the law. The authorised ofÏcer 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 ofÏcer 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 petitioner.

4. If the authorised ofÏcer is either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order as directed by this court in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.