The authority's rejection of a land conversion application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act was arbitrary and not aligned with statutory parameters, necessitating a remand for reconsideration.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P13 and P14. By Ext.P13, the Form-7 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected, against which an appeal was preferred, which was also rejected as per Ext.P14.

2. The petitioner is the owner of 29.20 Ares of land lying in Re Sy.No.49/17 of block No 33 of Anchal Village of Punalur Taluk in Kollam District. The property is not included in the published data bank of the Anchal Panchayath. Thereupon an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , (for short 'the Act, 2008') which was originally rejected as per Ext.P13. A perusal of Ext.P13 would reveal that the application has been rejected only for the reason that the property has not been converted. The appeal filed against the same was also rejected as per Ext.P14 stating that there is water logging in the property. Yet another reason stated for rejection is that there is paddy cultivation in the nearby property. The petitioner would submit that in respect of the said property, the application submitted under has been allowed as per Ext.P15.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent, wherein in paragraph 4 it is stated that the 3^rd respondent has informed that the conversion application was rejected, since the subject property is still water logged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

5. This Court in George Varghese v. The District Collector [ 2023 (7) KHC 93 ] has enumerated the parameters for considering an application under Section 27A , which has not been followed while issuing Exts.P13 and P14 orders. Paragraphs

4, 5 and 6 of the said judgment reads as follows:

“4. Admittedly, the property has been removed from the data bank as is evident from Ext.P5. A perusal of Ext.P5 order would reveal that the same has been done on the recommendation of the LLMC and also relying on the KSRSEC report which specifically mentioned that in the 2008 data the property has mixed vegetation/plantation and further on a finding that the property of the petitioner will not come within the definition of paddy land/wetland as per the provisions of the Act 2008. What has now been considered by Ext.P10 order is the Form 6 application submitted under Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 2008”). Section 27A deals with the change of nature of unnotified land. Sub-clauses 1 to 4 of read as follows:

27A. Change of nature of unnotified land. - (1) If any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or any other authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, after considering the reports of the Village Officer concerned, pass such orders as deemed fit and proper, on such applications, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water conservancy measures as is deemed necessary:

Provided that, if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures. (3) If the application is allowed, the applicant shall be liable to pay a fee at such rate as may be prescribed:

Provided that, no such fee shall be collected if the applicant proves that the land where the application is allowed is, filled up or naturally fill