The court emphasized the necessity for reasoned decisions when rejecting administrative recommendations.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Call for records leading up to Exhibit P2 and P5 and set aside the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders of directions directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to permit the petitioner to convert his land exercising power under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act ;

iii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to develop his land as the property of the petitioner is not included in the data bank and that the conversion of the same will not cause any detriment to the neighbouring cultivation;

iv) Dispense with the filing of English translation of Vernacular documents;

v) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner submitted an application before the 2^nd respondent in accordance with the provisions under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008. Ext.P1 is the report of the Village Officer submitted to the authorised officer. Thereafter, Ext.P2 order is passed rejecting the Form-6 application. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent as evident by Ext.P3. The same is also rejected as per Ext.P5 order. 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 Ext.P1 report of the Village Officer. It is clearly stated in Ext.P1 that there are no adjacent paddy field and the Village Officer in effect recommended conversion. It is also stated in the report of the Village Officer that on all sides there are buildings and there are coconut farm. It is also stated that the property is situated in a low lying area. But, in Ext.P2 order, it is stated that, the authorised officer inspected the property and found that the property is adjacent to paddy field and it is a fallow land.

5. This Court perused Ext.P2 order passed by the authorised officer in detail. There is nothing in Ext.P2 order to show that Ext.P1 recommendation of the Village Officer is considered by the authorised officer and thereafter passed the order. Government Pleader submitted that the Village Officer’s report is considered by the authorised officer and she takes me through paragraph No.2 of the impugned order. But, when the Village Officer recommended for conversion and thereafter when the authorised officer decides that the Form-6 application is to be rejected, the reason should be mentioned, why the report of the Village Officer is to be rejected. The Government Pleader submitted that, after verifying the report of the Village Officer, the authorised officer inspected the property and thereafter rejected the Form-6 application. The recommendation of the Village Officer is to be rejected by the authorised officer before rejecting the Form-6 application. According to me, a reconsideration is necessary in this case by the authorised officer.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Exhibits P2 and P5 orders are set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the Form-6 application and pass appropriate orders in it, in accordance with law.

3. While deciding the Form-6 application, the 2^nd respondent will advert Ext.P1 order and if it is to be rejected, the reason should be mentioned in the order.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE nvj