The Revising Officer exceeded jurisdiction by recalling an earlier order and neglecting proper procedural requirements, thus violating statutory mandates of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. Dias, J.

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 19.76 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.1165/5-4, 1165/5-3 and 1165/5-2 in Kothamangalam Village, Kothamangalam Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The respondents had erroneously classified the property as ‘paddy land’ and included the same in the data bank. By Ext.P2 order, the 2^nd respondent excluded the property from the data bank. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a Form 6 application under Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 (‘Act’ and ‘Rules’, for brevity) before the 2^nd respondent. Surprisingly, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, the 2^nd respondent not only rejected the Form 6 application but also recalled Ext.P2 order passed on the Form 5 application. Ext.P6 order is patently wrong and arbitrary. Hence, Ext.P6 order may be quashed.

2. The 2^nd respondent has filed a statement, asserting that, on receipt of the petitioner’s Form 6 application, the Village Officer had reported that the applied property is not completely converted. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent directly inspected the property and found that it is lying about 1.5 meter lower than the adjacent properties, is waterlogged and is suitable for paddy cultivation. Accordingly, he passed the impugned Ext.P6 order. The petitioner has an alternative right of appeal to challenge the order under Section 27B of the Act. The writ petition may be dismissed.

3. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer (‘RDO’) - the 2^nd respondent – by Ext.P2 order had allowed the petitioner’s Form 5 application, thereby excluding the property from the data bank. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioner submitted the Form 6 application to utilise the property for non-agricultural purposes and to change the nature of the unnotified land in the revenue records. Then the 2^nd respondent, purportedly based on the report of the Village Officer and after conducting a site inspection, suo motu recalled the earlier order passed on the Form 5 application and consequently rejected the Form 6 application.

5. In a case of factually analogous nature, this Court in Nikkie Varughese John v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Muvattupuzha (2024 (2) KHC 499 ), has emphatically held that the Act and the Rules do not confer any power upon the RDO to review or recall his order.

6. Notwithstanding the authoritative pronouncement of law in the above decision, the 2^nd respondent has suo- motu recalled Ext.P2 order on the ground that in the site inspection conducted by him, he found that the petitioner’s property lies approximately 1.5 meter below the level of the adjacent properties, is waterlogged, and is suitable for paddy cultivation.

7. There is a marked difference in the statutory procedure for considering Form 5 and Form 6 applications under the Act and the Rules.

8. Rule 4 (4d) of the Rules permits any aggrieved person to submit a Form 5 application to the RDO for exclusion of their property from the data bank. On receiving the application, the RDO is mandated to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer, if the property is classified as a ‘paddy land’ and from the Village Officer, if the property is classified as a ‘wetland’ in accordance with Rule 4 (4e) of the Rules. After that, under Rule 4 (4f), the RDO may either conduct a personal inspection of the property or rely on satellite pictures generated by the Central/State Institute of Science and Technology to verify the cont