The court underscored that the rejection of land use change applications must align with established legal standards concerning land conversion and agricultural practices.

JUDGMENT

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

"(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction Quashing Exhibits P4 and Exhibit P6 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to change the property obtained as per Exhibit P1 sale deed to ‘purayidam’ and use the same for non agricultural purposes.

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders changing the nature of the property of the petitioner obtained as per Exhibit P1 sale deed to ‘purayidam’ and to make necessary entries in the basic tax register (BTR) in this regard.

(iii) Any other appropriate, Writ, order or direction as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court to grant in the interests of justice.

(iv) It is also prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to dispense with the production of English translation of the Exhibits in malayalam for the time being and the same shall be produced as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner submitted an application in Form-6, in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules . The same was rejected as per Ext.P4. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was filed, and the appeal was also dismissed as evident by Ext.P6. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order would shows that the only reason for rejecting the application is that a stop memo is issued by the Village Officer, in connection with the propety in which the Form-6 application is filed.

5. A counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent.

Paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:

“5. It is submitted that, village Officer, Chengannur stated that on site inspection, no improvements are seen in the land, so cannot confirm that the land is converted before 2008. At present the land is seen as purayidom and no paddy land is seen in the vicinity. On verifying the village stop memo register it is seen that a stop memo has been issued on 28/12/2013 for unauthorised reclamation of land. Also, the land is not included in Data Bank. Based on the above hearing and on verifying the reports submitted by Agricultural Officer and Village Officer, order has been issued on 06/10/2025 rejecting the appeal.”

6. I am of the considered opinion that the reason mentioned in the impugned order will not stand in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [ 2023 (7) KHC 93 ]. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:

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