IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal remedy as per Section 27B(1) can be invoked before the District Collector only for the limited purpose of impugning order passed under Section 27A(2), going by the specific provision in Section 27B(1). So also, the revisional remedy under Section 28 can be pursued before the State Government, only to challenge a considered decision of the District Collector and not a decision rendered by the RDO.

JUDGMENT :

As the issues raised in these cases are the same, these writ petitions (Civil) are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the sole petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12906 of 2020, the sole petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12926 of 2020 and the sole petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12947 of 2020 is described hereinafter as 1st petitioner, 2nd petitioner and the 3rd petitioner, respectively.

The case set up in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12906 of 2020 is as follows :

That the petitioner, who is the owner of an extent of 33 cents of land situated in RS No.114/11-4 of Amarambalam Village has beseeched this Court aggrieved by Ext.P7 proceedings of the 2nd respondent. By virtue of Ext.P2 order, the petitioner obtained necessary sanction for conversion in terms of Section 27A(2) of Act 29 of 2018. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner remitted the necessary fees as prescribed. Thereafter, Ext.P2 order happened to be revoked by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P3 invoking Section 27A(11) of the Act relying on Ext.P4 report of the Tahsildar. Ext.P4 report was to the effect that the 5th respondent had allegedly deposited some soil in the property and therefore has violated the conditions in Ext.P2. However, a blanket revocation order was passed in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioner, the 5th respondent and also the brother of the 5th respondent who all had been the beneficiaries of Ext.P2 proceedings. Taking note of this anomaly in Ext.P3 and also taking cognizance of Ext.P1 report of the Village Officer which led to the passing of Ext.P2, this Court passed Ext.P5 judgment setting aside Ext.P3 revocation order. Now by virtue of Ext.P7, again the very same perverse order passed by virtue of Ext.P3 order has been reiterated. Quite surprisingly, the 2nd respondent presiding in her capacity as Chairperson of the District Level Authorized Committee and undersigning as the Sub Collector/RDO seemingly in compliance of Ext.P5 judgment passed the impugned Ext.P7 order setting aside Ext.P2. As a matter of fact, the District Level Authorized Committee has no jurisdiction whatsoever to consider the issue going by the scheme of Act 29. This court has not issued any direction to the said authority. That apart, when in Ext.P2 conversion order, there is a categorical finding that the property is an unnotified land and there is no embargo for granting an order of conversion in terms of Section 27A(2) of Act 29. Therefore, Ext.P7 would operate as an estoppel against the 2nd respondent from taking a diametrically opposite stand in Ext.P7, reiterating Ext.P3, which already stood set aside by virtue of Ext.P5 judgment. So much so, the orders passed as per Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 only gives an impression that merely because the formalities pertaining to change in revenue records are yet to follow through, the absence of the same will cause hindrance to 'free flow of water' and therefore the petitioner violated the conversion order. The 2nd respondent seems to be ignorant about the basic principles governing the conversion under the Kerala Land Utilization Order or under Section 27A(2) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and the consequent change of assessment in the Basic Tax Register under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. That apart, the erroneous assumption of facts resulting in Ext.P7 proceedings has effected valuable rights of the petitioner, who has been literally taken for a ride. It is nothing short of a colourable exercise of powers conferred under the Act and the same is a clear infringement of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12906 of 2020 with the following prayers :

“(i). To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records leading to Ext.P7 and quash the original of the same in so far as