Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1737 (KER)

Anju Jose v. District Collector

2025-06-27

C.S.DIAS

body2025
JUDGMENT : C.S. Dias, J. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 19.76 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.1165/5-4, 1165/5-3 and 1165/5-2 in Kothamangalam Village, Kothamangalam Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The respondents had erroneously classified the property as ‘paddy land’ and included the same in the data bank. By Ext.P2 order, the 2 nd respondent excluded the property from the data bank. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a Form 6 application under Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 (‘Act’ and ‘Rules’, for brevity) before the 2 nd respondent. Surprisingly, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, the 2 nd respondent not only rejected the Form 6 application but also recalled Ext.P2 order passed on the Form 5 application. Ext.P6 order is patently wrong and arbitrary. Hence, Ext.P6 order may be quashed. 2. The 2 nd respondent has filed a statement, asserting that, on receipt of the petitioner’s Form 6 application, the Village Officer had reported that the applied property is not completely converted. Accordingly, the 2 nd respondent directly inspected the property and found that it is lying about 1.5 meter lower than the adjacent properties, is waterlogged and is suitable for paddy cultivation. Accordingly, he passed the impugned Ext.P6 order. The petitioner has an alternative right of appeal to challenge the order under Section 27B of the Act. The writ petition may be dismissed. 3. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer (‘RDO’) - the 2 nd respondent – by Ext.P2 order had allowed the petitioner’s Form 5 application, thereby excluding the property from the data bank. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioner submitted the Form 6 application to utilise the property for non-agricultural purposes and to change the nature of the unnotified land in the revenue records. Then the 2 nd respondent, purportedly based on the report of the Village Officer and after conducting a site inspection, suo motu recalled the earlier order passed on the Form 5 application and consequently rejected the Form 6 application. 5. Then the 2 nd respondent, purportedly based on the report of the Village Officer and after conducting a site inspection, suo motu recalled the earlier order passed on the Form 5 application and consequently rejected the Form 6 application. 5. In a case of factually analogous nature, this Court in Nikkie Varughese John v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Muvattupuzha ( 2024 (2) KHC 499 ), has emphatically held that the Act and the Rules do not confer any power upon the RDO to review or recall his order. 6. Notwithstanding the authoritative pronouncement of law in the above decision, the 2 nd respondent has suo- motu recalled Ext.P2 order on the ground that in the site inspection conducted by him, he found that the petitioner’s property lies approximately 1.5 meter below the level of the adjacent properties, is waterlogged, and is suitable for paddy cultivation. 7. There is a marked difference in the statutory procedure for considering Form 5 and Form 6 applications under the Act and the Rules. 8. Rule 4 (4d) of the Rules permits any aggrieved person to submit a Form 5 application to the RDO for exclusion of their property from the data bank. On receiving the application, the RDO is mandated to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer, if the property is classified as a ‘paddy land’ and from the Village Officer, if the property is classified as a ‘wetland’ in accordance with Rule 4 (4e) of the Rules. After that, under Rule 4 (4f), the RDO may either conduct a personal inspection of the property or rely on satellite pictures generated by the Central/State Institute of Science and Technology to verify the contents in the data bank before passing orders on the Form 5 application. 9. Conversely, Section 27A of the Act provides that, the owner of unnotified land intending to use the land for residential or commercial or other purposes, shall apply to the RDO for permission. If so, the RDO, after considering the report of the Village Officer, has to pass orders on such application, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy fields, if any, through such water conservancy measures as he may deem necessary. If so, the RDO, after considering the report of the Village Officer, has to pass orders on such application, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy fields, if any, through such water conservancy measures as he may deem necessary. Sub-Section (4) of Section 27A further mandates that, if the application is allowed, reclamation of the land shall not adversely affect the cultivation of the paddy or any other crops in the adjoining land, and specify such water conservancy measures as are necessary to ensure the cultivation. To enable the RDO to specify the water conservancy measures, he may refer to the satellite images of the area maintained by the Government agencies. 10. As per Rule 12(1) of the rules, an application for changing the nature of unnotified land having an extent of up to 20.23 Ares, has to be submitted in Form 6, and for the land exceeding the above extent, has to submitted in Form 7. Sub-rules (4) and (6) of Rule 12 stipulate that, in a Form 6 application, the RDO has to call for a report from the Village Officer, whereas in a Form 7, the opinion of the Agricultural Officer is required. It is only when the extent of unnotified land exceeds one hectare, the RDO is obliged to inspect the land in the presence of the Agricultural Officer and Village Officer. Therefore, for land below 20.2 Ares, the RDO is required to only rely on the Village Officer’s report. 11. In the present case, the property in question has an extent of 19.76 Ares. 12. Going by the scheme of the Act and the Rules, the RDO was obliged to decide the Form 6 application solely based on the report of the Village Officer. But, the RDO deviated from the procedure contemplated under the Rules and directly inspected the property, and formed an opinion regarding the nature and character of the property, which was unwarranted and beyond the scope of the enquiry envisaged under the Act and the Rules. 13. In Manoharan K v. District Collector, Kannur ( 2024 (4) KHC 606 ), this Court has held that, the inclusion of a property in the data bank results in civil consequences, and therefore, the affected person has to be afforded an opportunity of being heard, before the inclusion of the property in the data bank. 14. 13. In Manoharan K v. District Collector, Kannur ( 2024 (4) KHC 606 ), this Court has held that, the inclusion of a property in the data bank results in civil consequences, and therefore, the affected person has to be afforded an opportunity of being heard, before the inclusion of the property in the data bank. 14. In the case at hand, by Ext.P2 order, the RDO had excluded the property from the data bank by allowing the petitioner’s Form 5 application. On passing of Ext.P2 order, the RDO became functus officio in the Form 5 application proceedings. Subsequently, while considering the Form 6 application, the RDO erroneously conducted an enquiry as per the procedure laid down to consider a Form 5 application, and then suo motu recalled the Ext.P2 order and concurrently rejected the Form 6 application. The procedure adopted by the RDO in passing Ext.P6 order is manifestly erroneous and vitiated by errors of law and jurisdiction. Hence, I am convinced that Ext.P6 order is liable to be quashed, Ext.P2 order be restored, and the 2 nd respondent be directed to reconsider the Form 6 application as per the procedure under the Act and the Rules. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition by quashing Ext.P6 order and restoring Ext.P2 order back to file, and directing the 2 nd respondent to reconsider the Form 6 application filed by the petitioner in consonance with Section 27A of the Act, read with Rule 12 (1) of the Rules. The above exercise shall be carried out within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.