Ground realities must be evaluated in land use conversion applications as per established judicial principles.

J U D G M E N T

With respect to an extent of 25.8 Ares of property in Survey No.160/26-2 of Narukara Village, purchased by the petitioner in the year 2016, which was described as Nilam in the revenue records and was also not included in the Data Bank, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking to change the nature of the unnotified land. By the order at Ext.P2 dated 27.11.2021, the Revenue Divisional Officer having rejected the application, the petitioner preferred an appeal, and the District Collector, pursuant to Ext.P4 order dated 18.03.2023, has also rejected the appeal. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Heard Sri.Siddharth Pisharody, the learned counsel representing Sri.Babu S.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

3. A reading of the appellate order at Ext.P4 as well as the original order at Ext.P2 would show that the application submitted under Section 27A of the Act was rejected on the basis of a report from the Head Clerk, as per which, the land was situated below the road level. But a perusal of the order at Ext.P2 as well as the appellate order at Ext.P4 would show that, it has been categorically found that the property in question is not suitable for paddy cultivation. In such circumstances, the ground realities ought to have been considered while deciding an application filed under the provisions of of the Act. This Court also notices the judgment in Dr.Satheesh Sankaran Namboothiri v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2025 (4) KLT 24 ], wherein this Court laid down that while considering an application filed as above, the "ground reality test" requires to be applied.

4. In the case at hand, Ext.P4 would show that the ground realities have not been considered while passing the order. This Court also notices that even as per Ext.P4, it has been categorically found that the property may not be suitable for paddy cultivation.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the consideration made while issuing Ext.P4 order does not appear to be correct. Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P4 order. There will be a direction to the

1^st respondent to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 27A of the Act with specific reference to the principles laid down by this Court in Dr.Satheesh Sankaran Namboothiri (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-