Court emphasizes the necessity for expert assessment in evaluating land conversion applications under relevant state legislation.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P10 order, whereby the Form-5 as well as the Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected, relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer and also the inspection report from the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein it is stated that in the BTR, the property has been termed as ‘Nilam’ and in the data bank, the property has been described as ‘partially reclaimed clay mined area’ and that only a portion of the property was filled up and the balance land is seen water logged.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

3. A perusal of Ext.P10 order would reveal that the reason for rejection is that in the data bank the property is described as ‘partially reclaimed clay mined area’ and further that only a portion of the property has been converted and the balance portion is seen as water logged. The property is lying low and there is water logging in the property are not reasons available for the authority for rejecting the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner going by the judgments inJessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner , Thiruvananthapuram [ 2021 (6) KHC 316 ] and Mather Nagar Residents Association and another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others [ 2020 (2) KHC 94 ]. Further, even as per Ext.P10 order, major portion of the property has already been converted and the entry in the data bank is also to that effect. It is seen that no KSREC report is called for before taking a decision as per Ext.P10. This Court inArthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222] has held that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSRSEC. Therefore, I am of the view that the applications have to be reconsidered.

Accordingly Ext.P10 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 2^nd respondent RDO/authoritsed o reconsider the applications submitted by the petitioner in Form-5 and Form-6 after obtaining the KSREC report. It is made clear that subject to the decision to be taken on the Form-5 application, further action be taken on the Form-6 application. The further consideration by the RDO/authorised officer as directed above shall be on applications in Form-5 and Form-6 filed as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008.

Sd/-