Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Moideen S/o Muhammed - Petitioner
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam - Respondent
WP (C) No. 6475 of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 2(12) - Writ petition challenging rejection of Form-5 application for land conversion - Petitioner owns land classified as 'nilam' and 'nanja', previously rejected for commercial use - Local Level Monitoring Committee's report indicated no environmental harm from conversion, yet application was denied based on conflicting assessments. (Paras 1 - 9 )
(B) Administrative Procedure - Requirement for authorities to provide reasons for decisions and consider relevant reports thoroughly - The court emphasized the necessity for the Revenue Divisional Officer to assess the application based on all materials, including prior reports. (Paras 8 - 9 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to convert land for commercial use but faced repeated rejections citing environmental concerns despite favorable reports from the Local Level Monitoring Committee.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Revenue Divisional Officer failed to adequately consider the relevant reports and did not provide sufficient reasoning for the rejection.
Issues: The main issues involved whether the rejection of the application was justified based on environmental impact and the adequacy of the assessments made.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that authorities must thoroughly consider all relevant reports and provide clear reasoning for their decisions, especially when conflicting information exists.
Result: The rejection order was set aside, and the Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to reconsider the application within two months.
JUDGMENT :
1. Above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P12 order whereby the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is in ownership and possession of 16 cents of dry land in Sy.Nos.9/5, 8/2A and 8/2B of Vaniyamkulam I Village, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad District. It is contended that the property is situated adjacent to the State Highway from Shornur to Palakkad and is surrounded by several commercial buildings. The property is reclaimed atleast 25 years ago and there is no paddy cultivation in the property atleast during the last 50 years. Earlier the request for issuance of building permit for construction of a commercial building was rejected stating that the property is classified as ‘nilam’ and ‘nanja’ in the revenue records. While so, an application was filed under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and a writ petition was filed as WP(C) No.3540 of 2017 seeking expeditious consideration of the said application. In the said writ petition, Ext.P7 report was filed by Local Level Monitoring Committee, wherein it is reported that the property in Sy.Nos.8/2A and 8/2B are not included in the data bank and the property in Sy.No.9/5 is classified as ‘nanja’ and the same was recorded in the data bank as ‘converted for construction of house’. It was also found in Ext.P7 report that the property is surrounded by several industrial units and there is no paddy cultivation in the nearby vicinity, and even if permission is granted for conversion it will not affect the free flow of water and will not cause any environmental problems in the locality. This Court adverting to Ext.P7 directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the application under KLU as per Ext.P8 judgment, but the Office of the 1st respondent insisted as a pre-condition for considering the said application that the petitioner has to prefer an application to remove the property from the data bank. Thereupon, an application in this regard was filed, but in the said application the Local Level Monitoring Committee took a totally different stand as evident from Ext.P9 that, conversion of the property will adversely affect the environment and the paddy cultivation. Thereupon by Ext.P10 the application was rejected. Petitioner challenged the same filing WP(C) No.18478 of 2021, wherein Ext.P10 order was set aside with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent RDO to reconsider the application with reference to all the materials on record including Ext.P7 and report of KSRSEC and pass a fresh order. Later on, fresh orders were passed as per Ext.P12 again rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein relying on the judgment in Sulekha Khadar v. Kuzhimanna Grama Panchayat [2022 (6) KHC 116] it is contended that the stand of the petitioner that impugned order is bad for not granting an opportunity of hearing is without any basis. It is after considering the KSRSEC report as well as the materials found out in the physical verification that the application was rejected. It is further submitted that in the enquiry and on the basis of the records it was found that the property has not been converted prior to 12.08.2008. There are no improvement or trees which would show that the property has been converted prior to 12.08.2008. Reliance is also placed by the learned Government Pleader on Exts.R1(a) KSRSEC report, R1(b) report of the Agricultural Officer and R1(c) report of the Village Officer.
4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
5. Ext.P7 is a report submitted by the Local Level Monitoring Committee before this Court in WP(C) No.3540 of 2017 which reveals that properties in Sy.Nos.8/2A and 8/2B is not included in the data bank and property in Sy.No. 9/5 is included in the data bank as converted
Authorities must provide adequate reasoning and consider all relevant reports when making decisions on land conversion applications.
Section 5 of Act 2008 reads as constitution of Local level Monitoring Committee.
A non-speaking order violates principles of fair assessment under land conservation laws.
The Revenue Divisional Officer must independently assess land status under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.
The authorized officer must consider suitability for paddy cultivation and binding legal precedents when determining land classification, ensuring compliance with judicial directives during inspectio....
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.
The assessment of land suitability for paddy cultivation must be substantiated by comprehensive evaluations, including prior agricultural use and relevant statutory principles.
The court emphasized the necessity for proper assessment of land suitability for paddy cultivation under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.
The Revenue Divisional Officer must independently assess land status before rejecting an application to remove land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.
The court ruled that statutory procedures must be adhered to when altering land classifications under the Act, emphasizing the necessity of obtaining requisite reports to ensure lawful decision-makin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
