The rejection of a Form-6 application for land conversion based on invalid criteria is arbitrary, necessitating reconsideration in line with established legal standards.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

“(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and P6 and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to grant formal permission for conversion of the subject land of the petitioner under section 27A of the Paddy Land Act (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner and to allow the same.

(iv) To dispense with production of the translation of documents in vernacular language; And (v) Issue any such other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice. ” [sic]

2. The petitioner submitted a Form-6 application in accordance with Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008. The same was rejected as per Ext.P3. When an appeal was filed, the same was also dismissed as evident by Ext.P6. Hence, this writ petition.

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

4. This Court perused Exts.P3 and P6. A perusal of the same would show that the Form-6 application is rejected mainly for the reason that it is a low lying and water logged area. This Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [ 2023 (7) KHC 93 ] considered in detail about the manner in which a Form-6 application is to be considered. 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, the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, after completing such procedure, as may be prescribed.

(4) If the application is allowed,