The rejection of land classification applications based solely on water logging is inconsistent with established judicial standards where prior approvals exist.

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.--------------------

W.P.(C).Nos.29678 of 2022 & 8244 of 2023 ----------------------------------------

Dated this the 28^th day of July, 2025

JUDGMENT

WP(C) No.29678 of 2022 is filed challenging Exts.P9 and P9(a) orders, whereby the Form-6 application submitted by the petitioners has been rejected. Whereas WP(C) No.8244 of 2023 is filed by the additional respondents 5 and 6 in WP(C) No.29678 of 2022 along with four others, seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to include the subject property as 'Nilam' in the data bank. WP(C) No.29678 of 2022

2. It is contended that the petitioners properties are unnotified land and thereupon, they filed Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a) applications in Form-6 for change of nature of the land and those were allowed as per Ext.P4 and Ext.P4(a), petitioners were directed to pay the prescribed fee and the same was paid, as evident from Ext.P5 and P5(a) receipts. Since no formal orders were issued, petitioners submitted request before the Revenue Divisional Officer and thereafter, this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to expedite the proceedings with notice to the petitioners as well as the objectors. Thereafter, by Exts.P9 and P9(a), the applications submitted by the petitioners were rejected. The additional respondents in WP(C)No.29678 of 2022 has filed a suit as OS No.136 of 2021, before the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam and by Ext.P6, the learned Munsiff was pleased to pass an ad-interim injunction as follows:

“1. The respondents/defendants their men and the persons acting as per their directions and instructions are hereby restrained from altering the present nature and lie of the plaint E and F schedule properties and they shall not do any act causing obstruction to the free flow of water through the said properties.

2. Comply Order XXXXIX Rule 3

3. This order shall have force until further orders

4. Issue urgent notice to the respondents. For return of notice, objection and hearing call on 20.11.2021.”

By the said order, the respondents/defendants, who are the petitioners in WP(C)No.29678 of 2022 and their men, who were restrained from altering the present nature and lie of the plaint E and F schedule properties and further directed that they shall not do any act causing obstruction to the free flow of water through the said properties. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in view of Ext.P6 order of injunction granted by the competent civil court, they have filed Exts.P7 and P7(a) undertaking before the RDO, which reads as follows:

“It is understood that one Staiby Eldho and others have filed a suit O.S.No.136 of 2021 and obtained an interim order from the Hon'ble Munsiff Court, Kothamangalam restraining me and one Josh Varghese from altering the nature and lie of the above said property and also obstructing the free flow of water through the said properties.

In this regard, I respectfully undertake that I will not change the physical nature/lie of the above said property and will not obstruct flow of any water through the said property, without getting permission from the Hon'ble Munsiff Court, Kothamangalam in the above suit OS No.136/2021.”

It is contended that even if Form-6 applications were allowed they have given an undertaken before the RDO, that they will not change the physical nature/lie of the property and will not obstruct the flow of any water through the said property, without getting permission from the Munsiff Court, Kothamangalam in OS No.136 of 2021. A perusal of Ext.P9 would reveal that it is only on the basis of the complaint preferred by the respondents that the applications have been rejected.

WP(C) No.8244 of 2023

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners in WP(C) No.29678 of 2022 are permit