Land conversion applications must adhere to legal criteria, ensuring previous evidence is fully considered in decision-making.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or direction, to call for records leading to Ext.P7 order and set aside the same.

b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to allow the Exhibit P6 Appeal filed by the petitioner.

c) Petitioner also prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the document produced in the vernacular language.

And d) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time.”

2. The petitioner is a resident of Kunnamkulam Taluk in Thrissur District and he is the owner in possession of 60 Ares 72 Sq. meter of land in Survey No.279/2-1 of Chowannur Village, Thrissur District, is the submission. The property of the petitioner is converted land before 04.07.1967 because the same is a uncultivable rocky area, is the submission. The property of the petitioner is land covered with laterite rocks and is not suitable for paddy cultivation but is suitable for the construction works and the proposed construction will not affect the neighboring properties and ecological balance of the area or locality, is the further submission. The petitioner’s property was included in the Data bank, but the same was removed by allowing Form 5 application submitted in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Form 9 application before the 3rd respondent seeking permission for converting nature for land for construction purpose. But the application filed by the petitioner for converting nature of land was dismissed by the 3^rd respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent was remanded back to the 3^rd respondent by the 2^nd respondent and directed the petitioner to file another application in Form 7 before the 3^rd respondent for change of user.

Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. According to the petitioner, the property of the petitioner as per document of 1940 is uncultivable rock and hence application has to be processed as per Sub rule (13) of Rule 12 of the amended Kerala Conservation of Paddyland and Wetland Act, 2008.

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner take me through the KSREC report. The observation and conclusion in Ext.P5 reads as under:-

“Observations & Conclusion The anyalysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2008,2010,2011,2017 and 2024 for the survey plot.

As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 279/2 was observed under laterite cap. The plot bordered by a road on south side was observed under laterite land without vegetation in 2008 data. The same land use pattern was observed to continue in the data of year 2010,2011 and 2017. The data of

2024 shows the plot without vegetation cover.”

6. According to the petitioner, in the observation and conclusion, it is stated that as per the toposheet of 1967, the Survey plot 279/2 was observed, under laterite cap. This aspect is not considered by the authorised officer is the submission. The learned counsel also relied on Ext.P8 KLU order. The learned Government Pleader submitted that an application in Form 9 is to be considered strictly in accordance to Rule 12(13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case.

7. A perusal of the impugned order do not show that Ext.P5 was considered properly. The learned counsel also relied on Ext.P8 in which it is stated that the data bank and the previous satellite images made it very c