HC removed a landlocked paddyland from databank
In Satheesh Sankaranarayanan Namboothiri (Dr) v State of Kerala the Kerala High Court decided that a property that remains irreparably fragmented by government acquisition, lies landlocked by roads and fallow with the scattered vegetation, and continues to remain unsuitable for cultivation, cannot be classified as paddy or wetland under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland, 2008 & its Rules.
Hence, in the above case, the High Court declared that the property is unsuitable for paddy cultivation and directed its removal from the Data Bank of Paddy & Wetlands.
RDO has discretion to directly visit or rely on satellite data
If the authorised officer does not directly inspect the property, but calls for the satellite data then it is incumbent upon him to accord due weightage to the imagery and in the absence of any other reliable or corroborative material, the satellite data can be treated as substantial evidence that cannot be disregarded without cogent justification.
The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), as per the Section 4 (4f) of the Paddy & Wetland Rule has discretion to either conduct a direct inspection of property or rely on satellite imagery. The purpose of the provision regarding satellite imagery is to form an independent opinion regarding the nature and character of the land, if he is unable to directly inspect the property.
The criteria that determine a paddyland
The characteristics that qualify a land as paddy or wetland under the Paddy & Wetland Act are that it must be a paddy or wetland, it must also be cultivable as on 12th August 2008, and its removal from Data Bank must adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the adjoining properties.
The court says a mere fallowness or seasonal waterlogging of a low-lying land does not classify the property as a paddy or wetland as per the Paddy & Wetland Act.
The High Court adds that the determination of land classification must be based on ground reality and not merely based on revenue records or the deeds.
HC relied on earlier judgements
Earlier in Nias v District Collector, Palakkad [2023 (6) KLT 118] the Kerala High Court held that the property landlocked by road is inherently unsuitable for paddy cultivation.
In Aishabeevi & Another v Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam & Others [ 2014 (3) KLT 1078], the Kerala High Court has emphasized that the determination of land classification must be based on ground reality and not merely on revenue records of the deeds.
Court can pass directions which an authority should have passed
Even though the declaration of paddy or wetland is incumbent upon the officer, the High Court can pass directions which the government or public authority should have passed, as per the Supreme Court (SC) judgement in Comptroller & Auditor General of India Gian Prakash, New Delhi v KS Jagannathan & Another ( AIR 1987 SC 537).
