The court held that the misclassification of land under conservation laws can lead to procedural errors in land use applications.

JUDGMENT

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

"i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders calling for the records leading to Exhibit P-4 and quash the same;

ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the 1^st respondent to reconsider the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act ,2008 and to allow the conversion of land requested by the petitioner;

iii. To dispense with the production of English Translation of documents which are in vernacular language;

iv. Render such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is the owner and in possession of 2.49 Ares of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.62/49 of Kuttikattur village. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 is the possession certificate and Ext.P2 is the land tax receipt. It is submitted that, in Ext.P1, the property is described as Nanja and in Ext.P2, the property is shown as pond. It is further submitted that, Ext.P3 would show that the property is not included in the data bank. The petitioner submitted a Form – 6 application before the 1^st respondent for category change. The said application was rejected by the 1^st respondent as per Ext.P4 on the ground that the pond will not come under the purview of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018. According to the petitioner, the definition of paddy land as well as wet land includes a pond also. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader. 4. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this Writ Petition.

5. The Special Government Pleader made available a letter issued by the Agricultural Officer, Peruvayal Krishibhavan. It will be better to extract the contends in the letter:

“Kind attention is invited on the reference cited above.

AS per the letter received the plot has been inspected by the Agricultual officer on 21.11.2024.

The property is situated in kozhikode taluk, kuttikkattoor village, kuttikkattoor desom R.Survey no. 62/3(62/49) having an area of 2.49 ares as per document no 2435/2013 is in possession of Sri. Marakkarkutty, Padinhare Vappungara. The above R.Survey number is not included in data bank published by the Peruvayal Gramapanchayath. As such the applicant has not submitted any application to LLMC or Peruvayal Krishibhavan for conversion.

After the receipt of the above letter, on inspection of the plot it is found that there is no pond in the above resurvey number and the plot consists of 6 coconut palms 15 years old, one Jack fruit tree of 30 years old, 15 arecanut palms of 10 years old and also banana plantains. The boarders of the plot in the north thodu, east old house, south pathway to the house and west common pathway. There is no signs of pond at present. The Geotagged photos are attached herewith.

This is for your kind information”

6. From the above, it is clear that the property is not a pond, and therefore the non-consideration of Form – 6 application is not proper. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order can be set aside and there can be a direction to consider the Form – 6 application in accordance with the law, after getting necessary report from the Village Officer concerned.

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

1. Ext.P4 is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent/authorised o the Form – 6 application in accordance with the law, after getting necessary report from the jurisdictional Village Officer, as expeditiously as pos