Judicial review can overturn arbitrary executive decisions on land use when procedural due process is not adequately followed, especially regarding agricultural lands.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i) “Call for the records leading up to Exhibits P2 and P3 and set aside the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions;

ii) Declare that the property of the petitioner is no longer a paddy land and hence there is no impediment whatsoever in permitting conversion as provided under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act ;

iii) Dispense with the filing of English translation of Vernacular documents; iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ” [sic]

2. The petitioner filed a Form-6 application in accordance with Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The same is rejected. An appeal is filed. The same 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.

Ext.P2 is the order passed by the authorised officer. A perusal of Ext.P2 would show that the Form-6 application is rejected mainly for the reason that the property is lying at a low level from the road and it is water logged. It is also stated that there is a water channel also near the property. No other finding is there in Ext.P2. The same is the reason for rejecting the appeal as evident by Ext.P3. 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 utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or any other authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, after considering the reports of the Village Officer concerned, pass such orders as deemed fit and proper, on such applications, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water conservancy measures as is deemed necessary:

Provided that, if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures.

(3) If the application is allowed, the applicant shall be liable to pay a fee at such rate as may be prescribed:

Provided that, no such fee shall be collected if the applicant proves that the land where the application is allowed is, filled up or naturally filled up before the 4th day of July, 1967, t