Kerala HC Penalizes Official for Arbitrary Land Conversion Denial

The High Court of Kerala took a stern stance against bureaucratic negligence in a recent judgment, holding a designated officer personally liable for costs after an arbitrary refusal of a land conversion application. Justice C.S. Dias, presiding over the case of Sujaya A B vs The District Collector , characterized the official's conduct as "manifestly perverse" and "ex-facie illegal."

Case Background

The dispute arose from a Form 6 application filed by the petitioner’s husband to change the nature of his 6.07 Ares of land in Vattamkulam Village, Ponnani Taluk, in revenue records. Despite the land being converted decades ago and housing a residential building, the application was repeatedly rejected by the 2nd respondent on the grounds that the property was included in the government’s "data bank" of paddy land and wetlands.

The matter had previously reached the High Court in W.P(C) No. 36392/2023 , where it was remanded for reconsideration. However, the authority again rejected the application, citing the same data bank inclusion, despite clear evidence—including the notified data bank itself and a report from the Village Officer—proving the property was never part of such data bank.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner contended that the respondent's action was illegal and arbitrary, highlighting that the property was explicitly excluded from the data bank as per Gazette Notification No. 156 (Vol. 12) dated 16.01.2023. Furthermore, the petitioner noted that the authorities had previously permitted the conversion of adjacent properties, suggesting discriminatory and careless handling of her specific application.

The state, representing the 1st respondent, argued that the Village Officer had reported a partial inclusion in the data bank, justifying the denial. They maintained that a Form 6 application could only proceed if the land was unnotified, requested that the writ petition be dismissed.

Key Observations

The Court was unsparing in its assessment of the official's failure to perform basic due diligence:

• "I find the course adopted by the authorised officer to be manifestly perverse, and ex-facie illegal."
• "When the appellate authority had in unambiguous terms directed the authorised officer to reconsider the application, it was his bounden duty to have verified the notified data bank."
• "It is without looking into the records that the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application, driving the petitioner to this Court due to sheer recalcitrance."

Court’s Decision and Implications

The High Court quashed the rejection order and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application within four weeks. In an exceptional move, the Court ordered the official who passed the impugned order to pay Rs. 10,000 as personal costs to the petitioner, citing the "laches and negligence" that forced the citizen to resort to litigation.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder to administrative authorities regarding their duty to verify records accurately before depriving citizens of their property rights. By imposing personal financial accountability, the Court has signaled a zero-tolerance approach toward perfunctory administrative decisions that waste both judicial time and public resources.