The Authorised Officer lacks jurisdiction to dictate the inclusion of land in the data bank without due process under the relevant Act and Rules.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P5 as illegal, unjust and arbitrary;

ii. Declare that, land measuring 17 Are and 26 Sq. m having Thandaper number 16638 in Survey Number 79 Block Number 80, in Kokkothamangalam Village of Cherthala Taluk in Alappuzha District of the petitioner mentioned in Ext.P3 is liable to be classified/treated to be converted as Dry land.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to classify/treat the land measuring 17 Are and 26 Sq. m having Thandaper number 16638 in Survey Number 79 Block Number 80, in Kokkothamangalam Village of Cherthala Taluk in Alappuzha District of the petitioner mentioned in Ext. P3 was converted as dry land.

iv. Declare that the land measuring 17 Are and 26 Sq. m having Thandaper number 16638 in Survey Number 79 Block Number 80, in Kokkothamangalam Village of Cherthala Taluk in Alappuzha District of the petitioner was not erroneously omitted from the data bank;

v. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay cost of this litigation as assessed by this Hon’ble Court."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is the owner of an unnotified land, and she had filed a Form-6 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and Rules, 2008. The same is rejected as per Ext.P5. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. A short point raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P5 is not a speaking order. It is also submitted that the Authorised Officer has no jurisdiction to issue a direction to include the property of the petitioner in the data bank while considering a Form-6 application. The counsel also submitted that the principles laid down by this Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [ 2023 (7) KHC 93 ] are not considered. The Government Pleader supported the impugned order. This Court perused the impugned order. First of all, it is not a speaking order. This Court, in George Varghese's case (supra), observed in detail the manner in which a Form-6 application is to be considered. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment.

“ 5. R.12 of the R.2008 deals with the procedure for change of nature of unnotified land, as provided in S.27A of the Act 2008. R.12(4) provides that on receipt of an application under Form 6 as provided in R.12 of the R.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 R.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 pad