The Court required adherence to prior legal principles in the reconsideration of land conversion applications under relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

i. a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P15 order and quash the same.

ii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the first respondent to allow the Ext.P3 application within a reasonable time.

OR reconsider Ext.P3 application afresh as the petitioner’s property as an unnotified land under section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 within a reasonable time after afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

iii. such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.

iv. a direction to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular document produced with this writ petition.

2. The petitioner submitted an application in Form 6 in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before the authorized officer. The application was rejected as evident by Ext.P8. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal. Appeal was also dismissed as evident by Ext.P12.

The petitioner challenged these two orders before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18110 of 2023. As per Ext.P13 judgment, this Court set aside the same and directed to re-consider the Form 6 application. Now, Ext.P15 order is passed and aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P13 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P13 judgment which reads as under:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the impugned order on the ground that the properties in question are not included in the data bank and the entry shows that it was converted before the coming into force of the Act, and as such, there is no requirement at all to apply under Form 5 of the Act and this position is covered by the judgment of this Court in Anand Louis v. Haaris Rasheed [2022 (1) KHC 554] . The petitioner, therefore, states that the consideration made in Exts.P8 and P11 are completely against the provisions of the Act as well as the judgment of this Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93] , wherein this Court held that the RDO while considering a Form 6 application seeking permission to change the nature of the un-notified land is only to find out whether such change of nature of land will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field if any, and whether such reclamation would adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land.

3. A perusal of the report of the Agricultural Officer, mahazar and Ext.P1 would clearly show the land was converted before the coming into force of the Act, and that the boundaries of the properties in question were all converted properties. Neither in Ext.P8 nor in Ext.P11 is there a consideration as mandated under Rule 12(5) of the Rules or the principles laid down in the judgment of this Court in George Varghese (supra). It has to be seen by Ext.P4, prepared after a site inspection, the Village Officer had recommended conversion which is also counter-signed by the Tahsildar., Ext.P5 site mahazar also shows the land is now remaining as fallow land. Ext.P6 report of the Village Officer tallies with the entry in the data bank that the property was converted before the coming into force for the Act. By Ext.P7 the petitioner was intimated about the conversion charges to be paid. Thereafter Ext.P8 was issued, relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, that the property has to be included in the data bank. In this case, there are contradictory reports, Exts.P4 t