The rejection of a Form-6 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act cannot be based on arbitrary reasons not provided in the statute.

JUDGMENT

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

"i. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P- 6 & Ext.P-8 orders passed by the 2nd & 1st respondents rejecting Ext.P-5 Form-6 application and dismissing Ext.P-7 appeal filed under Sec.27B of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the same;

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P-5 application in Form 6 afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon in view of the binding precedents in a catena of judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.

iii. To dispense with the production of English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with the Writ Petition in the interest of Justice;

iv. Render such other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem, just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner submitted an application in Form-6, in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). The same was rejected as per Ext.P6. The petitioner filed an appeal in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act, 2008' in short). The same was also rejected as evident by Ext.P8. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that a From-6 application cannot be rejected for the reason that the land is adjacent to a river. It is also stated in the impugned order that the property is water logged and it may comes under Coastal Regulation Zone notification (CRZ Zone for short). The learned counsel for the petitioner relied the judgments of this Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [2023 (7) KHC

93] and Shinila P.C. v. Sate of Kerala [ 2025 (2) KHC 273 ].

5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the authorised officer and the appellate authority had considered the matter in detail.

6. This Court in George Varghese case (supra)

considered the manner in which a Form-6 application is to be considered. The relevant portion 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 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 lan