The rejection of a Form-6 application must adhere to established legal criteria, focusing on actual impacts on adjoining paddy fields.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing Ext. P3 & P4 orders issued by the

2nd and 3rd respondents respectively;

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding respondent no. 3 to reconsider and pass orders allowing Ext. P2 Form 6 application as expeditiously as possible and within a time limit that may be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court;

iii. Dispense with the production of the English translation of vernacular Exhibits produced in the Writ Petition;

iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case;

v. Award cost of these proceedings to the Petitioner.

(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 dismissed. Aggrieved by those orders, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P3 order. The main reason for rejecting the Form-6 application is that the property is to be included in the data bank. That is not a reason to reject a Form-6 application. When a Form-6 application is filed, the same is to be considered on merit. This Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [ 2023 (7) KHC 93 ], observed like this:

“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 reveals that the only aspect that should be ascertained by the RDO while considering a Form 6 application seeking permission to change the nature of the unnotified land is whether such change of nature of land will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field, if any, and that such reclamation would adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land. A perusal of Ext P10 order reveals that there is no adverse finding by the RDO that the reclamation will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field and whether it will adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops in the adjoining lands. In Ext.P24 appellate order passed by the 1^st respondent there is a specific finding that there is no paddy cultivation in any of the nearby properties. In spite of the said finding, the application has been rejected by Ext P10 order based on the report of the Village Officer that the property is lying three feet below the road level and there is water logging in the property and further that the property has not been converted prior to 2008. The reasons stated in Ext P10 and P24 orders for rejecting the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner are not contemplated as