The Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to prescribed parameters for evaluating Form-6 applications concerning land classification, affirming previous judicial interpretations.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5, whereby the Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected for the reason that the property has features of a wetland and the same is lying 50 metres away from the river.

2. The petitioner would submit that in respect of the property of the petitioner himself, comprised in the very same survey number, Ext.P4 order was issued, wherein the Form-6 application submitted by him was allowed and that there is absolutely no reason for the Revenue Divisional Officer to take a contrary view, while considering a subsequent application filed by the petitioner in respect of the property comprised in the very same survey number.

3. It is to be seen that the reasons stated in Ext.P5 order for rejecting the Form-6 application are the grounds to be taken into consideration while considering a Form-5 application for removal from the data bank. Admittedly, the property is not included in the data bank. This Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [ 2023 (7) KHC 93 ] has considered the parameters to be looked into by the Revenue Divisional Officer while considering a Form-6 application. The relevant paragraphs 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 R.12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "R.2008"). S.27A deals with the change of nature of unnotified land. Sub-clauses 1 to

4 of S.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 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 filled up before the 4th day of July, 1967, the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, after completing such procedure, as may be prescribed.

(4)If the application is allowed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall ensure that the reclamation of the un - notified land shall not adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land and shall specify such water conservancy measures as is necessary to ensure such cultivation:

Provided that in specifying such water conservancy measures, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, if he deems fit, refer to satellite maps of the area maintained by Government agencies.

(underl