The High Court · 2025

BY ADV SMT.AMMINIKUTTY.K, SR.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 3471 OF 2025 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of a property having an extent of 10.12 Ares comprised in Sy. No 826/2-24 and Sy.No 828/PT-4 of the Manavalasseri Village in Mukundapuram Taluk. The case of the petitioner is that, even though the property of the petitioner is not included in the Data Bank notified under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Paddy Land Act’), in the revenue records, the same is described as “Nilam”.

2. According to the petitioner, the property is already reclaimed much prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act. In such circumstances, to reclassify the property of the petitioner as ‘purayidam’ in the revenue records, the petitioner submitted an application in Form 6, which was rejected by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P4. As against Ext.P4 the petitioner submitted an appeal before the 2nd respondent. It culminated in Ext.P5 by which Ext.P4 order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the 3 rd WP(C) NO. 3471 OF 2025 4 respondent for reconsideration of the Form 6 application and to pass orders on the same after referring to the report of the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer concerned.

3. As part of considering Form 6 application afresh, the 3rd respondent has now issued Ext.P6, wherein the petitioner was required to remit an amount of Rs.1,500/- towards the fees for obtaining a report from the KSREC. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P6 on various grounds. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that, earlier, as part of the processing of Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner, he was required to pay an amount of Rs.14,02,652/- as conversion fee for the same and the order of rejection was passed after the petitioner remitted the said amount.

4. I have heard Sri.G.Sreekumar (Chelur), learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Amminikutty K., learned Government Pleader respondents.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, WP(C) NO. 3471 OF 2025 5 the issuance of Ext.P6 is unwarranted and unjustifiable. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also raised an apprehension that, as the 3rd respondent had already rejected the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner after requiring the petitioner to pay the conversion fee, insistence for obtaining KSREC report is to revisit the non-inclusion of the petitioner’s property in the Data Bank.

6. On carefully examining the scope of the statutory enquiry contemplated under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, while considering an application in Form 6, it can be seen that, the parameters to be adopted for the said purpose are well defined. As per the said provision, the scope of enquiry is confined to the impact of reclamation, on the paddy cultivation or cultivation of other crops in the adjoining properties and nothing more. Moreover, the above aspect is clearly evident from Subsections (2) and (4) of Section 27A, which provide for the measures to be taken by the RDO, while considering the application to ensure that WP(C) NO. 3471 OF 2025 6 there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighboring paddy lands and to insist for such water conservancy measures as deemed necessary. As far as the properties having an extent larger than 20.2 Ares are concerned, it is mandatory that 10% of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures.

7. Again, in Subsection 4 of Section 27A, such a stipulation is reiterated to ensure that the reclamation of unnotified land is not adversely affecting the cultivation of paddy or any other crops in the adjoining land. Thus, on going through the statutory stipulation contained in Section 27A as a whole, it can be seen that, the purpose and scope of enquiry is confined to the water conservancy measures and the impact of the reclamation on the paddy cultivation and cultivation of other crops in the adjoining properties.

8. As per proviso to Subsection 4 of Section 27A, it is also specifically stipulated that, it shall be lawful to the Revenue Divisional Officer, if he deems fit, to refer to the satellite maps of WP(C) NO. 3471 OF 2025 7 the area maintained by the Government agencies for the purpose of specifying such water conservancy measures. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner, against Ext.P6 order as such cannot be entertained as the Revenue Divisional Officer is competent to refer to the satellite maps of the area for the purpose of specifying such water conservancy measures. Therefore, the stand taken by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P6 requiring the petitioner to submit an application for obtaining a report from the KSREC cannot be found fault with. However, as mentioned above, since the scope of enquiry contemplated under Section 27A is confined to the impact of such reclamation on the adjoining properties and the water conservancy measures to be adopted, while considering the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner, the same has to be strictly confined to those areas alone. The reference of KSREC report can be made for the said purpose as well.

9. At this juncture, the learned Government Pleader submitted that, the property of the petitioner originally formed part WP(C) NO. 3471 OF 2025 8 of a larger holding having a total extent of 145.60 Ares, and certain portions of the said property is still included in the Data Bank. In Ext.P5 order also, while referring to the report of the Field Officers this aspect was mentioned as well. However, I am of the view that, even if any such proceedings are to be initiated, that cannot be in a proceedings on the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 6. But, that will not preclude the authorities concerned in initiating separate proceedings for the said pruposes, if warranted. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i If the petitioner is submitting an application as directed in Ext.P6 before the additional 5th respondent within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be accepted and it will be forwarded to the KSREC without any delay and a report shall be obtained within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the same. WP(C) NO. 3471 OF 2025 9 ii On receipt of the same, it shall be forwarded by the additional 5th respondent to the 3rd respondent immediately and thereupon a decision shall be taken on the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner in the light of the observations made in this judgment within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such report. The petitioner shall produce the copy of the writ petition along with the certified copy of this judgment before the authorities concerned for compliance. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE WP(C) NO. 3471 OF 2025 10 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3471/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO 71 OF 24 DATED 17.1.24 OF THE IRINJALAKUDA SRO TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO 72 OF 24 DATED 17.1.24 OF THE IRINJALAKUDA SRO TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 8.10.24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 3.10.24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DATED 19.12.24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 13.1.25