The improper dismissal of land application violates procedural requirements under relevant statutes, necessitating reconsideration based on judicial precedent.

JUDGMENT

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

"1. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and P4 and quash the same as illegal.

2. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to re- consider Exhibit P2 application in accordance with law and to pass orders within a time frame to be fixed by this court.

3. Kindly dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents.

4. Grant Such other Relief. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner submitted an application in Form

5, in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, which resulted in Ext.P1, by which the Form 5 application is allowed. In Ext.P1, it is clearly stated that, if the property is deleted from the data bank it will not affect the adjacent paddy land or the natural water channels. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a Form-7 application, as evident by Ext.P2. The same was dismissed with a single sentence, as evident by Ext.P3 order. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same, and the same is also rejected as evident by Ext.P4.

The petitioner also relied Ext.P5 order, by which a form-7 application submitted by the petitioner to an adjacent land of the petitioner is allowed. Hence, this writ petition.

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

4. This Court perused the impugned orders. I am of the considered opinion that this is not the manner in which a Form-7 applicaiton is to be considered. This Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [ 2023 (7) KHC 93 ], observed like this:

“5. Rule 12 of the Rules 2008 deals with the procedure for change of nature of unnotified land, as provided in Section 27A of the Act 2008. Rule 12(4) provides that on receipt of an application under Form 6 as provided in Rule 12 of the Rules 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) shall forward the application to the Village Officer concerned and the Village Officer, in turn, shall conduct an enquiry on the application and submit a report before the RDO and Rule 12(5) mandates that the Village Officer shall also report whether if a change of nature of the land is permitted, it will cause any obstruction to the free flow of water to the nearby paddy fields, if any. The Rules further provide that if the extent of the property is more than 20.23 Ares, the report of the Agricultural Officer should also be obtained by the RDO as to the effectiveness of water conservancy measures that the applicant is proposing to implement in the property. A perusal of the Act and the Rules, 2008 reveals that the only aspect that should be ascertained by the RDO while considering a Form 6 application seeking permission to change the nature of the unnotified land is whether such change of nature of land will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field, if any, and that such reclamation would adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land. A perusal of Ext P10 order reveals that there is no adverse finding by the RDO that the reclamation will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field and whether it will adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops in the adjoining lands. In Ext P24 appellate order passed by the 1st respondent there is a specific finding that there is no paddy cultivation in any of the nearby properties. In spite of the said finding, the application has been rejected by Ext P10 order based on the report of the Village Officer that the property is lying three feet below the road level and there is water logging in the property and further that the property has not bee