The rejection of a Form 6 application based on arbitrary reasons violates the procedural requirements set forth in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Act.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent, the District Collector, dated 20.12.2024 (Exhibit P9), and the earlier rejection order passed by the 5th respondent the Sub Collector, dated 30.06.2023 (Exhibit P5),on the grounds that they are prima facie illegal, arbitrary, and without authority.

ii. Direct the 3rd respondent RDO to reconsider the petitioner’s Form 6 application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , in accordance with the law, after properly considering the report submitted by the Village Officer and pass orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity being heard, within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent , District Collector to reconsider the matter afresh affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. iv. To declare that the property of the petitioner is not a paddy land or wet land in view of the Ext. P4& P6 report of the Village Officer as well as in the Ext.P7 report of the Agriculture Officer Kolayad.

v. Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case ” [sic]

2. The petitioner filed a Form-6 application in accordance to Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. The same is rejected. An appeal is filed and the appeal is also rejected. 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 orders. The main reason for rejecting the Form-6 application as per Ext.P5, which is confirmed in Ext.P9 is that there is water logging and if the property is converted, it will affect the adjacent paddy fields. This Court perused Ext.P4, the report submitted by the Village Officer, especially the answer given by the Village Officer in Sl.Nos. 1 to 8. The Village Officer clearly stated that there is no adjacent paddy fields. It is further stated that there are 18 coconut trees aged 25 years, 2 arecanut trees aged 15 years etc. A perusal of the impugned order would not show that Ext.P4 report is adverted by the authorised officer, while dismissing Form-6 application. I can understand that the finding in Ext.P4 is rejected and thereafter, decided the matter. As per rule, the authorised officer has to consider the report of the Village Officer, while deciding a Form-6 application.

5. The manner in which a Form-6 application is to be considered is dealt in detail by this Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [ 2023 (7) KHC 93 ]. The relevant portion of the above 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. What has now been considered by Ext.P10 order is the Form 6 application submitted under R.12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "R.2008"). S.27A deals with the change of nature of unnotified land. Sub-clauses 1 to 4 of S.27A read as follows:

27A. Change of nature of unnotified land. - (1) If any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilis