The authority must reconsider land use change applications, adhering to established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i. “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, to quash Exhibit-P4 and P12 orders issued by the 2nd and 1st respondent respectively.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Exhibit-P3 Form No.6 application and grant permission to change the nature of petitioner’s land in the Revenue records as Purayidom and to utilize the property for any other purposes including residential, commercial purposes. iii. Declare that the 5 Ares 57 Sq.m of property of petitioner was converted much prior to the commencement of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act ,2008. Hence the 2nd respondent is liable to reconsider Exhibit-P3 Form No.6 application and shall grant permission to change the nature of petitioner’s land in the Revenue records as Purayidom and also grant permission to utilize the property for any other purposes including residential, commercial purposes.

iv. Be further pleased to issue such other writ or order or direction as deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

v. Be pleased to dispense with filing of translation of vernacular Documents.” [sic]

2. The petitioner filed a Form-6 application in accordance to Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. The same was rejected as per Ext.P4 order. The petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as evident by Ext.P12. Aggrieved by these orders, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. The counsel for the petitioner takes me through Ext.P19 proforma report of the Village Officer. This Court perused the report submitted by the Village Officer, especially serial Nos. 1 to 6. But the report of the Village Officer is not considered in the impugned order. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are to be reconsidered in the light of Ext.P19. While deciding Form-6 application, the authorised officer will follow the principles laid down by this Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [ 2023 (7) KHC 93 ] and Godwin R Thattil v.

District Collector, Ekm [ 2025 (4) KHC 519 ].

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

1) Exts.P4 and P12 are set aside.

2) The 2^nd respondent/authorised officer will reconsider the Form-6 application of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P19 and also in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in George Varghese's case (supra) and Godwin R Thattil's case (supra) and pass appropriate orders in it as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

03.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.6 APPLICATION DATED 11.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RDOPTM-