Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45294
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
PAPPACHAN M.M. – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17299 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.T.K.SREEKALA, SMT.S.PARVATHI, SMT.NIKITHA SUSAN PAULSON, SMT.UTHARA ASOKAN, SHRI.ANAND GEO, SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.)
For the Respondents: SMT.PREETHA K K, SR.GP, SRI.VISHNU S CHEMPAZANTHIYIL, SC, KSREC
The authorized officer must adhere to procedural rules outlined in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and cannot require additional applications after approval and fee payment.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Sections 27A and Rule 12 - Land conversion - Petitioners challenged erroneous classification of land as 'Nanja' instead of 'converted land' - Application for land conversion denied based on the erroneous classification despite submission of fees and necessary documents. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Administrative Procedure - The authorised officer's requirement for Form 5 applications, despite prior approval and fee payment, fundamentally contradicted established procedure outlined in the Act and Rules. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, joint owners of 2.316 hectares of land in Mattoor Village, filed an application to change land classification after remitting a substantial conversion fee. The respondents erroneously required additional applications despite clear instructions from the Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court directed the authorised officer to finalise water conservancy measures, issue the conversion certificate, and amend revenue records within 60 days, while rejecting the need for additional Form 5 applications.
Issues: Whether additional Form 5 applications were necessary for land conversion after prior approval and fee payment, and adherence to executing procedures as per law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that established procedures under the Kerala Conservation Act must be followed, affirming that a valid fee payment suffices for proceeding with land conversion applications. The necessity for additional applications contradicted the earlier approval.
Result: Writ petition is allowed, directing expeditious action on the conversion certificates.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 06th day of August, 2025 The petitioners are the owners in possession of
2.316 hectares of land, comprised in various survey numbers in Mattoor Village, Aluva Taluk, covered under Exts.P1 to P4 land tax receipts. The property is a converted land and has not been included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules , 2008 ('Act and Rules' in short). However, the respondents have erroneously classified the land as 'Nanja’ (Nilam) in the revenue records. To change the nature of the property in the revenue records, the petitioners jointly submitted Ext.P5 application in Form 7 under Section 27A , read with Rule 12(1) of the Act and Rules, along with Ext.P6 sketch. Based on Ext.P7 report of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P8 fee notice, directing the petitioners to remit Rs. 63,95,070/- towards conversion fee. The petitioners remitted the fee on 15.01.2021, as per Ext.P9 cheque. Subsequently, the 1st respondent called for a report from the Agricultural Officer (4th respondent) regarding the feasibility of the water conservancy measures shown in Ext.P6 sketch. Surprisingly, the 4th respondent, instead of giving his opinion on the water conservancy methods, reported that a portion of the property is included in the data bank as ‘converted land’. As directed by the 4th respondent, the petitioners submitted Exts.P13 to P16 applications in Form 5 under Rule 4 (4d) of the Rules. Even after a lapse of four years, no action has been taken in the matter. Hence, the respondents may be directed to finalise the proceedings and issue the conversion certificate.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is inter alia stated that the petitioners separately own the property as per the Thandapper accounts. However, they have jointly filed the Form 7 application. The authorised officer has found that the property was converted before 2008, and there is no legal impediment to allow the Form 7 application. Accordingly, the petitioners were directed to remit the fee, which they have remitted. By Circular No.LRA4/4038/2021 dated 23.03.2022, the respondents have been directed that, if a property is included in the data bank even as a ‘converted land’, a Form 5 application is to be filed for the exclusion of the property from the data bank, before a decision is taken on the Form 7 application. Thus, the petitioners were directed to submit the Form 5 applications. Unless a decision is taken on the Form 5 applications, the Form 7 application cannot be considered. Furthermore, the petitioners have to file independent Form 7 applications. As per Government Order dated 27.06.2024, the powers of the Revenue Division Officer have been delegated to the Deputy Collectors. Accordingly, in July 2024, the files were transferred to the Deputy Collector (LA), Ernakulam. Owing to the pendency of older matters and the lack of staff, priority is given to the older files.
3. Heard; Sri.V.V.Asokan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Preetha K K, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 02.05.2025, this Court restrained the 4th respondent from proceeding with Exts.P13 to P16 Form 5 applications.
5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, notwithstanding the interim order dated 02.05.2025, the authorised officer has rejected Ext.P13 (a) Form 5 application on 06.06.2025.
6. The 1st respondent has in the counter affidavit, in unambiguous terms, admitted that the petitioners' properties are not included in the data bank, and the authorised officer has found that the properties were converted before 2008. The authorised officer has principally allowed the Form 7 application and directed the petitioners to remit the conversion fee of Rs. 63,95,070/-. They have remitted the fee on 15.01.2021.
7. To resolve the dispute at hand, it is necessary to refer to Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation
