Fair hearing and adherence to statutory inquiry limits are critical in administrative decisions affecting land rights.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i) “Call for the entire records leading up to Exhibit P3 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the first respondent to re-consider Exhibit P2 application submitted by the petitioner in Form 6, after following the procedure known to law;

iii) Dispense with the filing of English translation of Vernacular documents;

iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” [sic]

2. According to the petitioner, his properties as per revenue records is described as 'nilam'. Ext.P1 is the photograph of the properties of the petitioner. When a Data Bank was published in Amarambalam Panchayat, the properties of the petitioner was not included in the Data Bank and as such the properties are unnotified land within the meaning of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 is the submission. Therefore, the petitioner made Ext.P2 application in Form 6 to change the user of the land before the 1^st respondent. Now, the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P3 order in which it is stated that, on the basis of the report of the Village Officer, there was a water stream through the culvert and if the nature of the land is permitted to be changed, the same will affect the water flow. It is the case of the petitioner that, without hearing the petitioner and on the sole basis of the said report, the 1^st respondent directed to include the land of the petitioner in the Data Bank is the submission. It is submitted that, after the preparation of the Data Bank, after obtaining objections and finalization of the Data Bank, there is no power to the 1^st respondent to direct a particular property to be included in the Data Bank. It is also submitted that, it cannot be done under Sec.27A of the . Therefore, it is submitted that Ext.P3 is unsustainable.

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

4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The counsel also relied the judgment of this Court dated 12.03.2025 in W.P.(C.) No. 27393/2023. The Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order is an appealable order and the petitioner has to raise these contentions before the appellate authority.

5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. This Court perused the judgment relied by the learned counsel. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment.

“7. It is evident from a careful perusal of the statutory stipulations contained in Sec. 27A of the Paddy Land Act that the same would confine to matters such as, whether there is any adjoining paddy land, or whether the reclamation of the unnotified land would affect the free flow water to the adjoining paddy land or whether such reclamation would adversely affect the cultivation or any other crops in the adjoining land.

8. Therefore, when an application Form 6 is being considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer, such inquiry should be confined to the matters specifically contemplated under Sec.27A and nothing beyond the same. As far as noninclusion of property in the Data Bank is concerned, it would not be within the zone of consideration of the Revenue Divisional officer or the Authorised Officer under Section 2(xvA) of the Paddy Land Act when an application in Form 6 is being considered. Therefore, in this case, while considering the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent traveled beyond the scope of the inquiry co