Authority must act within statutory limits; decisions cannot exceed prescribed jurisdiction regarding land classification.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, or direction to quash the Exhibit P7 impugned order of the 2nd respondent, District Collector, rejecting the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner;

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, to change the classification of the land in the revenue records;

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider the Ext P3 form 6 application afresh and allow the petitioner to use the land for other purposes;

iv. Dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents;

v. To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner is the absolute owner of 6.63 ares of land in Sy No.182/6-2 of Chowannur Village in Kunnamkulam Taluk, Thrissur District. The property of the petitioner is not included in the data bank and the same is shown as un-notified land. The petitioner filed a Form-6 application. The same is rejected as per Ext.P5. An appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed, as evident by Ext.P7. 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.P5 order. The only reason stated in Ext.P5 to dismiss the application is that, there is water logging and marshy land. This Court, in Shinila P.C. v.

State of Kerala [2025 (2) KHC 273] , observed like this:

“12. The crucial aspect to be noticed is that, Subsection 4 starts with the words “if the application is allowed..” . This would mean that, once the application is allowed, it is the obligation on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer to ensure that the reclamation of the land is not adversely affecting the cultivation of paddy or any other crops in the adjoining lands and shall specify such water conservancy measures as is necessary. Therefore, while conducting an inquiry for an application under Section 27A , the scope of such inquiry is confined to the question as to whether the said reclamation would result in disruption to free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands or would it affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining lands as held by this Court in George Varghese (Supra) , as well as in Nikkie Varughese John v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Muvattupuzha,2024 (2)

KLT 296.

13. It is the general rule of interpretation that , if a statute enumerates the things upon which it is to operate, everything else must necessarily, and by implication, be excluded from its operation and effect, can be rightly found in the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”. it is a settled legal position of law that a statutory body must act within the framework of the statute and cannot travel beyond the statute. One individual can do all things save and except those, which are prohibited under the law, whereas the Statutory Body only can do anything as are prescribed within the jurisdictional parameters or control of the concerned statute as held in the cases of K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi , (1974) 2 SCC 506 , Ramachandra Keshav Adke (Dead) By LRs and others v. Govind Joti Chavare and others, (1975) 1 SCC 559, J.N. Ganatra v. Morvi Municipality, (1996) 9 SCC 495, Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (2008) 9 SCC 177, Union of India v. International Trading Company, (2003) 5 SCC 437, Ramdeen Mayurya v. State of UP and others, (2009) 6 SCC 735.

14. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited , (2003) 2 SCC 111, the Hon’ble Apex Court has affirmed that -;

“……It is well settled that when a statutory authority is required to do