The rejection of a Form - 6 application based solely on waterlogging is arbitrary when it contradicts prior judicial findings regarding land classification.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" 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 submitted a Form - 6 application before the 2^nd respondent in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 2008). The same was rejected as per Ext.P2. Petitioner filed an appeal against the same, and the appeal was also dismissed as per Ext.P3. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. The Form - 6 application was rejected mainly for the reason that it is a waterlogged area. That alone is not a reason to reject a Form-6 application. This Court in George Varghese V. District Collector [ 2023 (7) KHC 93 ] considered this point in detail. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment:

"5. R.12 of the R.2008 deals with the procedure for change of nature of unnotified land, as provided in S.27A of the Act 2008. R.12(4) provides that on receipt of an application under Form 6 as provided in R.12 of the R.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 R.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 lands. In Ext P24 appellate order passed by the 1^st respondent there is a speci finding that there is no paddy cultivation in any of the nearby properties. In spite of the said finding, the application has been rejected by Ext P10 order based on the report of the Village Officer that the property is lying three feet below the road level and there is water logging in the property and further that the property has not been converted prior to 2008. The reasons stated in Ext P10 and P24 orders for rejecting the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner are not contemplated as per S.27A of the Act 2008 or in R.12 of the R.2008. The reasons now stated are essentially parameters to be considered at the time of consideration of a Form 5 application