IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FRIDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 15TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO.43213 OF 2023 PETITIONER:

ANTONY KURIAKOSE, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.KURIAKOSE, OLIAPURAM, THATTEKAD P.O., PIN - 686681 BY ADVS.

RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW ANJANA S.

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.D.O. OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR, PATTIMATTOM-MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA (P.O.), PIN - 686673

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, PIN - 686681 BY SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the 1^st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, rejecting Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner in Form 7 under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity, 'the Act']. The reason for rejecting the application is that there is a water chal in the petitioner's property.

2. The petitioner submits that Ext.P2 application of the petitioner has been rejected without compliance of the statutory provisions and without due application of mind. The petitioner refers to Ext.P5 report of the Village Officer under Rule 12(5) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 [for brevity, 'the Rules'], which shows that there are no paddy fields anywhere near the petitioner's land and there are no paddy cultivation in the locality. The petitioner also refers to Ext.P6 report of the Village Officer, wherein it is reported that there are no paddy cultivation in the nearby area. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 27A(2) and (4) of the Act as well as Rule 12(5) of the Rules and the decision of this Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93] and Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83] and contends that Ext.P8 order of the RDO cannot be sustained. In George Varghese [supra] this Court observed that the only aspect that should be ascertained by the RDO while considering Form 6 application is whether such change of nature of land will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field, if any, and that such reclamation would adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

“5. Rule 12 of the Rules 2008 deals with the procedure for change of nature of unnotified land, as provided in Section 27A of the Act 2008. Rule 12(4) provides that on receipt of an application under Form 6 as provided in Rule 12 of the Rules 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) shall forward the application to the Village Officer concerned and the Village Officer, in turn, shall conduct an enquiry on the application and submit a report before the RDO and Rule 12(5) mandates that the Village Officer shall also report whether if a change of nature of the land is permitted, it will cause any obstruction to the free flow of water to the nearby paddy fields, if any. The Rules further provide that if the extent of the property is more than 20.23 Ares, the report of the Agricultural Officer should also be obtained by the RDO as to the effectiveness of water conservancy measures that the applicant is proposing to implement in the property. A perusal of the Act and the Rules, 2008 reveals that the only aspect that should be ascertained by the RDO while considering a Form 6 application seeking permission to change the nature of the unnotified land is whether such change of nature of land will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field, if any, and that such reclamation would adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land. A perusal of Ext P10 order reveals that there is no adverse finding by the RDO that