Order Rejecting Change of Nature of Land under Section 27A(2) of Kerala Act, 2008 is Appealable: Kerala High Court - 2025-09-10

Navigating Statutory Remedies: High Court Directs Land Conversion Disputes to Appellate Authority

In a significant ruling regarding the procedural hurdles of land conversion in Kerala, the Kerala High Court has underscored the importance of exhausting statutory appellate remedies before approaching the court under Article 226.

The case of Farhana Latheef v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakkuda centered on the rejection of an application for changing the nature of "unnotified" land. The petitioner had sought to reclassify her property—recorded as paddy land in revenue records but excluded from the local data bank—to facilitate residential or commercial use.

The Procedural Dispute

The petitioner, Farhana Latheef, challenged the Revenue Divisional Officer’s (RDO) order rejecting her Form 9 application, which had been filed under Rule 12(13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. While the local Village Officer had initially submitted a report favorable to the petitioner, the RDO ultimately rejected the application, prompting the petitioner to seek immediate relief from the High Court.

The State, represented by the Government Pleader, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The State argued that Section 27B of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , provides a clear statutory appeal mechanism to the District Collector. By bypassing this stage, the petitioner had neglected the hierarchy of legal redressal.

Defining the Legal Framework

Justice Viju Abraham, presiding over the matter, clarified the scope of Section 27A, which governs the change of nature of unnotified land. The Court noted that whether an application is filed under the various forms prescribed by the Rules—such as Form 6, 7, or 9—the resulting order by the RDO fundamentally falls under the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 27A.

The central question was whether such an order qualifies for the appellate process outlined in Section 27B. The Court firmly observed that Section 27B explicitly provides for an appeal to the District Collector for any person aggrieved by an RDO’s order passed under Section 27A(2).

Key Observations

The judgment relied on a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions:

• On the nature of the order: "On a combined reading of all the provisions quoted above, there is no room for any doubt that Ext.P10 order is an order passed under sub-section (2) of S.27A of the Act, 2008, which is appealable under S.27B of the said Act."
• Clarification on Precedents: Distinguishing this case from Sakeer Hussain v. State of Kerala , the Court noted: "The said judgment is decided on a totally different set of facts and cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
• Finality of Procedure: The court emphasized that the appellate procedure cannot be bypassed, stating: "Taking into consideration the fact that an alternate remedy of appeal is provided against Ext.P10 order... I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition."

The Verdict and Its Impact

Recognizing the petitioner’s desire for resolution, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition but granted the petitioner three weeks to file an appeal before the District Collector. Furthermore, the Court ordered that if the appeal is filed within this timeframe, it shall be treated as timely, and the appellate authority must dispose of the matter within three months after providing the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing.

This judgment serves as a reminder to legal practitioners and property owners in Kerala that the High Court maintains a strict adherence to statutory hierarchy. Parties seeking to challenge revenue department orders regarding land conversion must exhaust the specialized appellate channels provided by the 2008 Act before seeking extraordinary judicial intervention in the High Court.