JUDGMENT : Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Act'), and the District Collector directed the property to be restored as paddy land. Revision petition preferred before the State Government under Section 28 of the Act has also been dismissed, and hence this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner is the owner of 12.40 Ares of property in Resurvey No.220/3 of Vazhakkad Village, Kondotty Taluk. On 28.07.2019, the Revenue Divisional Officer reported to the District Collector that petitioner was attempting to convert his paddy land unauthorisedly and requested to initiate proceedings under Section 13 of the Act. Based on the said report, the District Collector initiated proceedings and, by order dated 04.11.2020, directed the petitioner to restore the paddy land within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the revenue officials were directed to carry out restoration and to recover the expenditure from the petitioner by recourse to revenue recovery proceedings. 3. Challenging the order of the District Collector, petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 28 of the Act before the Government. By the impugned order dated 27.05.2023, the State Government dismissed the revision petition. 4. Sri.K.Rakesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the orders of the District Collector, as well as the State Government, are bereft of any reasoning and are liable to be set aside. It was pointed out that the property is already planted with Arecanut palms, as revealed from the photographs produced along with the writ petition and that the petitioner had purchased the property in 1988, at which point of time itself, the land was left without any paddy cultivation or any irrigation facility. The learned counsel also submitted that the subject property is locked in between lands which have already been converted, and therefore, there is no possibility or feasibility of any paddy cultivation. The learned Counsel asserted that the authorities failed to consider the relevant factors, rendering the impugned orders perverse. 5. Smt. Devishri R., the learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the land is included in the data bank as paddy land, and when attempts to convert the paddy land by planting Arecanut palms were noticed, proceedings were initiated. The learned Counsel asserted that the authorities failed to consider the relevant factors, rendering the impugned orders perverse. 5. Smt. Devishri R., the learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the land is included in the data bank as paddy land, and when attempts to convert the paddy land by planting Arecanut palms were noticed, proceedings were initiated. It was further submitted that the scope of judicial review of orders of statutory authorities under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and that the circumstances do not warrant any interference. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner was issued notice under Section 13 of the Act and a decision has been arrived at by the District Collector after granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. It was further pointed out that reports were also obtained, and even at the revisional stage, the petitioner was heard. The decision arrived at by the authorities, therefore, ought not be interfered with, contended the learned Government Pleader. 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel and on a perusal of the two impugned orders, it is noticed that the District Collector initiated proceedings under section 13 of the Act, based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 28.07.2019. Subsequently, the Agricultural Officer also submitted a report on 05.02.2020 after conducting a site inspection. The report of the Agricultural Officer stated that unauthorised conversion of the paddy land was taking place and that the petitioner was planting Arecanut palms, which would prejudicially affect the adjacent paddy fields, the nearby streams and even the wetlands. It was also reported by the Village Officer that despite intimating the petitioner, he had not desisted from converting the property and instead continued the illegal acts. The Village Officer has also reported that even though the property is planted with Arecanut palms, there were no buildings. 7. The District Collector thereafter conducted a site inspection. The property on inspection was found to contain Arecanut palms of 6 years in age and on the eastern side, there were small ‘neerchals’ (streams). He was satisfied that even the surrounding lands were suitable for paddy cultivation. 7. The District Collector thereafter conducted a site inspection. The property on inspection was found to contain Arecanut palms of 6 years in age and on the eastern side, there were small ‘neerchals’ (streams). He was satisfied that even the surrounding lands were suitable for paddy cultivation. After verifying the basic tax register, which classified the property as 'Nilam' and after considering the report of the Agricultural Officer and on the basis of the site inspection, the District Collector came to the conclusion that the planting of Arecanut palms was a measure of conversion of paddy land which is illegal under the Act. The District Collector specifically mentioned that such conversion of paddy land would affect prejudicially the water level, the ecology of the land and the paddy fields in the padashekharam situated in the adjacent land. On being satisfied with the aforementioned factors, the District Collector directed the petitioner to restore the property in exercise of the powers under Section 13 of the Act. 8. In the revision petition preferred before the Government, petitioner contended that he had planted Arecanut palms because the adjacent properties had all been planted with trees, thereby interfering with the free flow of water from the property and the paddy cultivation became impossible. It was also submitted that he has not converted the land and he planted Arecanut palms only because the paddy cultivation became impossible. Petitioner asserted that he had not converted the paddy land. The Agricultural Officer again submitted a report before the revisional authority asserting that the property was unauthorisedly attempted to be converted by planting Arecanut palms and that in the draft data bank as well as in the final data bank published, the property is shown as a paddy land. The Tahsildar had also reported that due to the planting of Arecanut palms in the property, the width of the ‘neerchals’ (streams) had been narrowed and unless the property is restored to a paddy field, it would prejudice the nearby paddy fields. 9. Petitioner's representative was heard on 07.12.2021 pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.29067 of 2020. 9. Petitioner's representative was heard on 07.12.2021 pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.29067 of 2020. After considering the arguments advanced and also after perusing the various materials available before the revisional authority as well as the District Collector, the State Government dismissed the revision petition after finding that the acts committed by the petitioner amounted to conversion and, therefore, the property is required to be restored. 10. A perusal of the two orders impugned, i.e. the order of the District Collector under Section 13 of the Act and the order of the State Government under Section 28 of the Act, reveals that the decisions were arrived at in due compliance with the principles of natural justice. Both the statutory authorities had considered the materials on record and the District Collector had even inspected the site, despite being placed with the reports of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Agricultural Officer. Even on the basis of the site inspection, the authority was convinced that the property was a paddy land which was being attempted to be converted. A property included in the data bank as paddy land cannot be converted as per the provisions of the Act. The mere existence of Arecanut palms or their planting is not sufficient to assume that the property was converted prior to 2008. In fact, the order specifically refers to the report of the Agricultural Officer that the Arecanut palms are only a few years in age. 11. Even though the petitioner relied upon Ext.P3 series of photographs, it is a settled proposition that the Courts cannot base its decision on photographs. Even otherwise, there is nothing to indicate that the photographs produced relate to the subject property. Even if the photographs relate to the subject property, the impugned orders have specifically mentioned that the petitioner has converted the property by planting Arecanut palms, which are only six years old. The statute attempts to prevent such illegal conversion of paddy land. Unless such attempts are curbed, the very purpose of the Act will be defeated. 12. In this context, the object of the Act is required to be borne in mind. The Act was enacted to conserve the paddy lands and to restrict the conversion or reclamation of paddy lands to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system in the State. 12. In this context, the object of the Act is required to be borne in mind. The Act was enacted to conserve the paddy lands and to restrict the conversion or reclamation of paddy lands to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system in the State. In the statement of objects and reasons, it is specifically observed that paddy field conversions have led to enormous ecological degradation with the ecological system losing its quality irrecoverably, and the entire society is the loser. It is further observed that, in the wider interest of society and mankind, paddy lands are to be preserved and paddy cultivation promoted at any cost. These salutory objects cannot be ignored especially when attempts are made to convert paddy lands after the coming into force of the Act. 13. In this context, it is apposite to extract Section 13, which reads as below: “13. Power of the District Collector. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the District Collector may take such action, as he deems fit, without prejudice to the prosecution proceedings taken under the Act, to restore the original position of any paddy land or wetland reclaimed violating the provisions of this Act, and realize the cost incurred in this regard from the holder or occupier of the said paddy land or wetland, as the case may be, so reclaimed after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) Where the decision is to restore the original position of paddy land or wetland, the District Collector may take any action in such manner, as may be prescribed, to dispose clay, sand, earth etc. removed from the paddy land or wetland or any brick or tile made of all or any of them, in the process of such restoration and cause to remit the sums collected to the Fund.” 14. Section 13 of the Act confers a power upon the District Collector to initiate proceedings on being informed of unauthorised reclamation of paddy land. In the absence of such a power, the Act itself will become redundant. Every attempt to convert or reclaim paddy land unauthorisedly ought to be curbed. Therefore, no fault can be found with the District Collector in exercising the powers under Section 13 of the Act in the circumstances of the case. In the absence of such a power, the Act itself will become redundant. Every attempt to convert or reclaim paddy land unauthorisedly ought to be curbed. Therefore, no fault can be found with the District Collector in exercising the powers under Section 13 of the Act in the circumstances of the case. On the contrary, bearing in mind the objective of the Act, the District Collectors have a bounden duty to initiate such action to restore the original position of paddy or wetlands. None of the authorities under the Act can remain as mute spectators to rampant conversions of paddy or wetlands in the State. 15. Apart from the above, as rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders of the statutory authorities is in the realm of judicial review. The principles of judicial review require the Court to act only as 'auditors of legality' and ought not to substitute their views for that of the statutory authority. Reference to the decision in Prodair Air Products India Private Limited v. State of Kerala ( 2023 (3) KHC 1 ) is relevant in this context. Similarly, the Court, while considering the legality of orders of statutory authorities, cannot sit as an appellate forum to re-appreciate the findings and substitute its own conclusions for that of the statutory authority. Even if the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may have a different view or a conclusion, that is not a ground to interfere with the order of the statutory authority. 16. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the statutory authorities have carried out every step contemplated by law in arriving at a decision. No perceivable illegality has been pointed out or pleaded, nor is it evident from the impugned orders. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petition lacks merit, and no grounds are made out for an interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.