The statutory authorities must properly consider recommendations in agricultural land conversion cases under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i) Call for all records leads to Exhibits P6, P9, and P13, and quash Exhibit P13 by issuing the Writ of Certiorari.

ii) Declare that the land covered by Ext.P1 and P2 is not a Nilam, and the petitioner is entitled to get the revenue records corrected iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order commanding the officials to change the nature of land covered by Ext.P1 and P2 in revenue records.

iv) Issue such other writ, direction or order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” (SIC)

2. The petitioner submitted a Form – 6 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The same was rejected as per Ext.P7. The petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal and the same was also rejected as evident by Ext.P9. Thereafter, the Government also confirmed the same as per Ext.P13 order.

Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that, as per Ext.P5, the Agricultural Officer recommended that the Form – 6 application can be allowed. Without adverting to or rejecting the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer, as evident by Ext.P5, the impugned order was passed.

5. The Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order is a speaking order passed after adverting to all the available materials and that a stop memo is also issued, as evident by Ext.P1.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. This Court perused Ext.P5 report of the Agricultural Officer. A perusal of the same would show that the Agricultural Officer recommended conversion with a condition that, if the obstruction in the drainage passing near the property is cleared, the conversion can be allowed. The same is not even considered in Ext.P7 order. It is true that, in paragraph No.4 of Ext.P7, Ext.P5 report is recorded. Thereafter the application was rejected mainly for the reason that the petitioner is trying to convert her land illegally without necessary orders. The same is the finding of the District Collector and the Government. It is the duty of the statutory authorities to consider Ext.P5 and decide whether it is to be accepted or rejected.

7. I am of the considered opinion that the matter is to be reconsidered by the District Collector who is the appellate authority. This Court also perused Ext.P13, which is an order passed by the Government. I am surprised as to how the Government invoke revisional jurisdiction in respect of an order passed in a Form – 6 application. No such revisional jurisdiction is there to the Government as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008. Therefore, Ext.P13 order also can be set aside.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Exts.P9 and P13 orders are set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P7 order in the light of Ext.P5 report of the Agricultural Officer, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-