Land classification changes must align with statutory provisions, ensuring irrational decisions are set aside by judicial oversight.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i. “Call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P- 5 & Ext.P-7 orders passed by the 2nd & 1st respondents rejecting Form-6 application and dismissing Ext.P-6 appeal filed under Sec.27B of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the same;

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent to take up Ext.P-6 appeal petition afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon in view of the binding precedents in several judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.

iii. To dispense with the production of English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with the Writ Petition in the interest of Justice;

iv. Render such other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem, just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [sic]

2. The petitioner is in absolute ownership and possession of 8.90 ares (22 cents) of unnotified and uncultivable land comprised in Survey No. 145/2-14 of Pavaratty Village, Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur District as per document No. 265/1976 dated 14.02.1976 of Mullassery Sub Registry. The Data Bank in respect of the paddy lands and wet lands in Pavaratty Village was notified on 15.01.2021 and the petitioner's property is not included in the Data Bank. Hence, the petitioner submitted an application in Form-6 under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules (for short 'Rules') for change of classification of the petitioner's land from 'nilam' to 'purayidam' in the revenue records. The 2^nd respondent rejected the petitioner's Form-6 application observing that the petitioner's property was excluded from Data Bank by mistake and directed the 4^th respondent-Agricultural Officer to take necessary steps to include the petitioner's land in the Data Bank. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority confirmed the finding of the original authority. Aggrieved by these two orders, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P5. In Ext.P5, except stating that the property is to be included in the Data Bank, there is no other finding as far as Form-6 application is concerned. This Court perused Ext.P7, which is the appellate order. In the appellate order, it is stated that, on inspection of the property, it is found that there is water logging in the property. A water channel with two metres width is also there near the property. It is also stated in the order that similar types of properties are there in the place. The Government Pleader submitted that, after inspection, the Village Officer reported that the land composed of bunds and coconut trees planted and there are canals in this land and it appears that there is water in the channel.

5. This Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93] observed about the manner in which a Form-6 application is to be considered. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder :

4. “Admittedly, the property has been removed from the data bank as is evident from Ext.P5. A perusal of Ext.P5 order would reveal that the same has been done on the recommendation of the LLMC and also relying on the KSRSEC report which specifically mentioned that in the 2008 data the property has mixed vegetation / plantation and further on a finding that the property of the petitioner will not come within the definition of paddy land / wetland as per the provisions of the Act 2008. Wha