IMPORTANT POINT
Statutory authorities must act within their jurisdiction, and rejection of an application for land classification cannot rely on factors outside the scope of the inquiry defined in the relevant law.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 9.51 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No.77/22 in Block No.4 of Kakkur Village in Kozhikode Taluk. According to the petitioner, even though the said property described as “paddy land” in the Revenue records, it was reclaimed much prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Paddy Land Act’). It is averred that, there is a residential building in the said property and trees are also standing there. Despite the above, the said property was included in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act.

2. In such circumstances, an application was submitted for removing the same from the Data Bank, and while processing the said application, the Ext.P2 report was submitted by the LLMC after conducting the physical inspection of the property. In the said report, it was found that a residential building is in existence in the said property and there are trees as well. On the basis of the above, a recommendation was made by the LLMC to remove the property from the Data Bank. Besides, it was specifically mentioned in Ext.P2 report that, the conversion of the land did not affect the natural water flow as well. Acting upon Ext.P2, the entire extent of property was removed from the Data Bank and the notification issued in this regard is Ext.P1.

3. Later, the petitioner submitted an application in Form 6 for classifying the property as dry land in the Revenue records. However, the said application was rejected by the 3^rd respondent as per Ext.P5 order. Challenging the same, an appeal was submitted before the 2^nd respondent and that culminated in Ext.P9, by which the appeal was dismissed confirming Ext.P5 order. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances, challenging Ext.P5 and P9 orders passed by the respondents 3 and 2 respectively.

4. A counter affidavit was submitted by the 4^th respondent. It is averred in the said counter affidavit that, as per the report of the Village Officer, only 4.04 Ares of land from the whole applied land was seen converted, and in the remaining area of land, trees are seen growing, and there are water logging in the said property. It was further averred that, some trenches exists amidst the trees and due to the nearby pond, water logging can be seen in the pond during heavy rains. In such circumstances, the 4^th respondent sought the dismissal of this writ petition.

5. I have heard Sri.Unni K.K., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Amminikutty K., learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. The specific challenge raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is against the reasons which prompted the respondents 3 and 2 to pass Exts.P5 and P9 orders respectively, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 6. On going through Ext.P5, which was confirmed as per Ext.P9, the main reason mentioned in the said order is that the entire extent of property is not seen converted prior to the enactment of Paddy Land Act. Yet another reason highlighted is that, there is water logging in the said property.

7. As far as the first reason mentioned in the impugned order is concerned, namely, the entire extent of property was not converted, I am of the view that, the same cannot be accepted. This is particularly because, in this case, the property was excluded from the Data Bank, as per Ext.P1 notification, after conducting a legal procedure contemplated under the Act, which includes an inquiry as to the nature of the property. Evidently, Ext.P2 is the report submitted by the LLMC, wherein it is specifically found that, the property is liable to be excluded from the Data Bank. Besides, a specific finding was also entered into in Ext.P2 to the effect that, the conversion would not affect the natural flow of water. Ext.P1, is apparently issued, by removing the property of the petitioner from the Data Bank, being convi