Grounds for rejecting an application for land reclassification must adhere to procedural requirements as set under the relevant act and rules.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P12 and P15 orders. By Ext.P12, the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected and the appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed as per Ext.P15. 2. The petitioners submit that they are the absolute owners of

9.11 Ares of land in Sy. No.61/4A of Thrithala Village, Pattambi Taluk, Palakkad District as evident from Ext.P1, for which basic tax was paid as evident from Ext.P2. There was a water channel passing through the property of the petitioners and the said water channel was excluded from the total extent of the property of the petitioners by the Revenue Officials. Accordingly, the total extent of the property in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners is 8.91 Ares in Sy.No.61/4A. Since the property was described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records and the same is included in the data bank, even though the land was lying as a paramba, the petitioners submitted an application before the 2^nd respondent to remove the property from the data bank. Later, a decision was taken to remove the property from the data bank and necessary gazette notification was published as per Ext.P5 wherein the property of the petitioners was included as Sl.No.27. Thereafter Ext.P6 application in Form-6 was submitted and Ext.P9 report has been submitted by the Village Officer, wherein it is stated that there is no paddy field nearby and also reported that after further verification, proceedings could be initiated on the Form-6 application. But, without considering any of the same, by Ext.P12, the application was rejected stating that the property is suitable for paddy cultivation and issued a consequential direction to the Agricultural Officer to include the same in the data bank and the same was upheld in the appeal as per Ext.P15. The petitioners submit that none of the reasons stated in the impugned orders are sustainable and the parameters for considering a Form-6 application has not been taken into consideration while rejecting their application. The petitioners rely on the judgment in Ramachandran N. v. Salim [2025 KHC OnLine 1968] wherein the Court has held that the exclusive authority for including a property in the data bank is vested with LLMC and therefore held that the District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer has no power to direct the LLMC to include a property in the data bank.

3. Heard both sides.

4. This Court in George Varghese v. The District Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93] has enumerated the parameters to be looked into while considering a Form-6 application, which has not been done while passing Ext.P12 order. 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 Section 27A 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 C