An appeal against an order declining a Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act is unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Call for records leading to Ext. P27 order issued by the 1st Respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the same;

ii. Call for records leading to Ext. P28 order issued by the 6th Respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the same;

iii. To issue such other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and just under the circumstances of the case. ”

[SIC]

2. The petitioners submitted a Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity) before the authorised officer. The authorised officer passed Ext.P8. The 9th respondent challenged Ext.P8 before the 1st respondent by filing an appeal under section 27B of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (‘Act’, for brevity). Thereafter, the 9^th respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17748/2021, and this Court had directed to consider that appeal and pass appropriate orders in it, in accordance with the law. Thereafter, Ext.P27 order was passed, whereby restoration of the property was ordered by invoking the powers under Section 13 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. The short point raised by the petitioners is that, no appeal is maintainable against Ext.P8 order, and therefore, Ext.P27 proceedings itself is unsustainable. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader, learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for the

9^th respondent.

4. I think there is force in the argument of the petitioners. Admittedly, there is no appeal against an order passed in a Form 5 application submitted in accordance to the Act. The 1^st respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P27 based on the direction in Ext.P13 judgment. This Court perused Ext.P13 judgment. This Court only directed the appellate authority to consider Ext.P7 appeal, and this Court has not considered whether the appeal is maintainable or whether the contention of the petitioners in that writ petition are sustainable or not. Therefore, the 1^st respondent will not get any jurisdiction to pass orders in an appeal based on the directions in Ext.P13 judgment. As I mentioned earlier, admittedly no appeal is maintainable in an order passed in a Form 5 application as per the the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules (‘Rules’, for brevity). For that short point, Ext.P27 is to be set aside. But I make it clear that the statutory authority are free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, if there is any violation to the provisions of the Act and Rules. Since, Ext.P27 is set aside, Ext.P28 also can be quashed. But, I make it clear that, I am setting aside Ext.P27 and consequently Ext.P28, because the 1^st respondent has no jurisdiction to pass such an order invoking the appellate jurisdiction against a Form 5 application. All the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents are left open.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) Exts.P27 and P28 are set aside.

(ii) The statutory authorities as per the Act and Rules, are free to pass proceed in accordance with the law, if there is any violation.

Sd/-