The authority must reconsider Form 6 applications under the relevant Act based on legal findings.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writs, Orders or directions, calling for the records leading to Ext. P6 and to quash the same along with the original of Ext P6, considering it as illegal and per se arbitrary, ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the Ext. P4, P4(A), P4(B), P4(C), which are applications submitted under FORM 6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act 2008, forthwith and pass orders on the same as expeditiously as possible that too within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

iii) To grant such other reliefs sought from time to time including the cost of this proceeding.

iv) True English translations of the vernacular shall be furnished as directed by this Hon’ble Court.” [SIC]

2. The petitioners herein are the absolute owners in possession of an extent of 25 cents of land comprised in R.Sy. No.302/3 of Chevayur Village, Kozhikode Taluk.

According to the petitioner, the said property was wrongly included in the draft data bank as ‘wet land’. Against the wrong inclusion, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.28618/2021 before this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 4^th respondent submitted their report favouring the petitioners and accordingly this Court directed the petitioners to invoke the provisions of Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008 is the submission. It is the further submission that the petitioners invoke the said provision by submitting an application in Form 6 before the 2^nd respondent. The Village Officer / the 3rd respondent herein submitted their report. But, no orders were passed by the 2^nd respondent and therefore the petitioner approached this Court again by filing WP(C) No.9687/2025. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing to consider the Form 6 application. Consequently Ext.P6 order is passed in which it is stated that the property is included in the data bank and therefore, Form 6 application is not maintainable.

Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P3 judgment, especially paragraph Nos.3 & 4. It will be better to extract paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the abovesaid judgment:

“3. Government Pleader would submit that those applications were favourably considered and allowed and the land is not included in the Data Bank.

4. If that be so, to change the nature of the land in Revenue records, the petitioners have to invoke the provisions of Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The prayer of the petitioners to declare that the provisions of the Act, 2008 have no application in respect of their land, cannot be allowed as no tangible reason is advanced justifying that prayer. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned for changing the nature of the land in Revenue records, in accordance with law.”

(Underline supplied)

5. In the light of the same, I am of the considered opinion that the finding in Ext.P6 order will not stand unless the above judgment is reviewed. The authority has to reconsider Ext.P4 series Form 6 applications, in accordance with law.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. Ext.P6 order is set aside.

1. The 3^rd respondent Village O directed to submit necessary report to the 1^st respondent / competent authority, based on Ext.P4 series Form - 6 applications, as expeditiously