The rejection of land classification applications based solely on water logging lacks legal justification under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records pertaining to Exbt P1 and 2 and the quash the same.

ii. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to change the nature of land of the petitioner’s property in revenue records.

iii. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to reconsider petitioner’s application in the light of the judgment in George Varghese v. District Collector reported in 2023(7) KHC 93.

iv. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

v. To dispense with the translation of documents in vernacular language. (SIC)

2. Petitioner filed a Form-6 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and the same was rejected. An appeal was filed against the same, and that was also rejected. Aggrieved by those orders, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that the Form-6 application is rejected only for the reason that there is water logging in the property. The petitioner relied on judgment of this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others [ 2020 (2) KHC 94 ]. The Government Pleader submitted that a statement is filed by the 3rd respondent. The Government Pleader takes me through paragraph 7 of the statement, which is extracted hereunder:

7. It is submitted that the Village Officer, Pathanamthitta submitted report on the petitioner's Form 6 application. In the report it is stated that the applied land is adjacent to the Ring road Pathanamthitta and is low lying and below the road level. Even though the land is not included in the data bank, which was published by Pathanathitta Municipality it has the nature of paddy land / Nilam and the land is water logged during rainy season. Moreover the respondent conducted site inspection and understood that the land has the nature of nilam and water logged during rainy seasons and confirmed the Village officer's report. Based on the report of the Village officer and Site inspection, the form 6 application was rejected. From the report of the village officer and the inference from the site inspection, it was clear that the land has the characteristics of nilam. If the application to change the nature of land is approved, it will be against the spirit of the Kerala Conservation of paddy and wetland Act & Rules 2008’.

5. I am of the considered opinion that the manner in which the Form-6 application is disposed is not proper in the light of the principle laid down in Mather Nagar Residents Association’s case (supra). The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:

“22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSREC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSREC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely becaus