The court emphasized the importance of consistent and accurate evidentiary reports prior to denying land use applications.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and P7 and quash the same.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Exhibit P4 application submitted under Form 6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act and Rules.

iii. To dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

iv. Issue such other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner is the owner and in possession of land having an extent of 0.0592 ares comprised in Resurvey No.106/14 of Vallicode Village, Konni Thaluk, Pathanamthitta District, by virtue of Settlement Deed No.1902/2014 of SRO Pathanamthitta. According to the petitioner, the property is a converted land and it is not included in the data bank. But the properties are described as “nilam’’ in the basic tax register. Petitioner submitted a Form-6 for converting the land for the purpose of constructing a residential building. By Ext.P5 order, 2^nd respondent rejected the same. The petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal. The appeal is also dismissed as per Ext.P7 order. Hence this writ petition.

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 takes me through Ext.P8 report of the Agricultural Officer and the inspection report of the Village Officer, as evident by Ext.P9. The counsel also takes me through Ext.P10, which is the inspection report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The counsel submitted that, regarding the water course mentioned in these reports are contradictory to each other. The petitioner narrated the contradiction in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, which is extracted hereunder:

“9. On scrutinising the exhibit P8, P9 and P10 reports, the following contradictions are discernible.

i. In Exhibit P8 report, the agricultural officer states that there is flow of water at the northern boundary of said property and water flow is only during the rainy season. Nothing has mentioned about a water flow through the middle of the property.

ii. In Exhibit P9 report the village officer states that there is a water flow through the middle of the property in the south-north direction and also water flow through the western and northern boundary of the property.

iii. In Exhibit P10 site inspection report the 1st respondent states that there is a water flow through the middle of the property, but the same is in the east – west direction. And also water flow through the northern side of the property. Nothing has been mentioned about the water flow through the western side of the property. These contradictions would show that there is no water flow through the middle of the property either in the east – west direction or in the south – north direction as stated in the Exhibit P7 order. There is a Panchayat road on the eastern side of the property and that itself would reveal the fact that there cannot be any flow of water through the middle of the property in the east – west direction. Further all these reports establish the following facts.

i. There is no paddy cultivation in the nearby properties. In fact there is no Paddy cultivation in and around the near vicinity of this property for the last 40 years.

ii. In Exhibit P9 site inspection report, the 2nd respondent RDO states that Prima facie, the lie of the property looks like a garden land. There are 30 years old tree standing in the said property. The reports of the Agricultural officer and Village officer support the said fact.”

5. The Government Pleader takes