The Court emphasized that land utilization permissions must align with statutory provisions and that arbitrary administrative actions infringe upon the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Call for records leading up to Exhibit P7 and set aside the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions;

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders of directions directing the 2nd respondent to re-consider Exhibit P5 request in the light of Exhibit P2 Order of the 1st respondent passed under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order as expeditiously as possible ;

iii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get favourable orders on Exhibit P5 as the property in question is already permitted to be converted by Exhibit P2 Order;

iv. Dispense with the filing of English Translation of Vernacular Documents;

v. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (SIC)

2. Petitioner obtained Ext.P2 order in accordance with the Kerala Land Utilization Order . Subsequently Ext.P2 was set aside by the Government and that order was challenged before this Court by filing WP(C) No.23307/2014. This Court, as per Ext.P3 judgment, set aside that order. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 judgment is extracted hereunder:

“18. So also, the reports submitted before this Court by the statutory authorities clearly reveal that the property was converted long back to the introduction of Act, 2008. It is clearly stated therein that the property in question is not at all fit enough for paddy cultivation. In the KSRSEC report also, it is stated that the property is remaining as agricultural land. Nowhere it is mentioned therein also that the property is fit enough for cultivation. Further, the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court also shows that the property is lying as dry land and it is not at all fit for paddy cultivation.

19. Taking into account all these aspects, I am of the considered opinion that, the 1st respondent has erred totally in interfering with Ext.P8 order passed by the primary authority and Ext.P11 order passed by the appellate authority. Moreover, the reasons assigned in Ext.P15 order passed by the State Government are not sufficient enough to hold that the same are on the basis of any established circumstances in order to interfere with the two orders passed by the fact finding bodies, by exercising the revisional jurisdiction conferred on it.

20. Moreover, Ext.P8 order is passed by the primary authority as early as on 08.05.2013 in an application submitted much prior to that time, and several developments have taken place in the subject issue. Further, the property was not never included in the data bank also. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, Ext.P15 order passed by the State Government in the revision suffers from illegality, arbitrariness, and is also violative of the principles of natural justice, for more reasons than one, including the allegation that matter was heard by the Under Secretary and order passed by the Principal Secretary, which contention is practically admitted in the counter affidavit filed for and on behalf of the 1st respondent. So also, an inspection was conducted suo motu, after the hearing, without notice to the petitioner and relied upon such factual circumstances to adjudicate the proceedings, clearly discernible from the counter affidavit apart from the impugned order. In my considered opinion, such conduct, and exercise undertaken by the 1st respondent is arbitrary and illegal, warranting interference of this Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly