Kerala High Court
Sreekala Unni vs State Of Kerala on 19 November, 2025
2025:KER:88662
W.P.(C). No.37444 of 2022
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 37444 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SREEKALA UNNI
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O UNNI, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS E-2 UNIVERSITY
QUARTERS, COCHIN UNIVERSITY PO, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT- 682022.
BY ADV SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691021.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR,
PUNALUR P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691305.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ANCHAL VILLAGE OFFICE, ANCHAL P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-
691306.
5 THE TALUK TAHSILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE TALUK TAHSILDAR, PUNALUR TALUK OFFICE,
PUNALUR P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691305.
OTHER PRESENT:
GP- RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:88662
W.P.(C). No.37444 of 2022
:2:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.37444 of 2022
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P13 and P14. By Ext.P13, the Form-7 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected, against which an appeal was preferred, which was also rejected as per Ext.P14.
2. The petitioner is the owner of 29.20 Ares of land lying in Re Sy.No.49/17 of block No 33 of Anchal Village of Punalur Taluk in Kollam District. The property is not included in the published data bank of the Anchal Panchayath. Thereupon an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, (for short 'the Act, 2008') which was originally rejected as per Ext.P13. A perusal of Ext.P13 would reveal that the application has been rejected only for the reason that the property has not been converted. The appeal filed against the same was also rejected as per Ext.P14 stating that there is water logging in the property.
Yet another reason stated for rejection is that there is paddy 2025:KER:88662 W.P.(C). No.37444 of 2022 :3: cultivation in the nearby property. The petitioner would submit that in respect of the said property, the application submitted under Section 27A has been allowed as per Ext.P15.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent, wherein in paragraph 4 it is stated that the 3 rd respondent has informed that the conversion application was rejected, since the subject property is still water logged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.
5. This Court in George Varghese v. The District Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93] has enumerated the parameters for considering an application under Section 27A, which has not been followed while issuing Exts.P13 and P14 orders. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said judgment reads as follows:
"4. Admittedly, the property has been removed from the data bank as is evident from Ext.P5. A perusal of Ext.P5 order would reveal that the same has been done on the recommendation of the LLMC and also relying on the KSRSEC report which specifically mentioned that in the 2008 data the property has mixed vegetation/plantation and further on a finding that the property of the petitioner will not come within the definition of paddy land/wetland as per the provisions of the Act 2008. What has now been considered by Ext.P10 order is the Form 6 application 2025:KER:88662 W.P.(C). No.37444 of 2022 :4: submitted under Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 2008"). Section 27A deals with the change of nature of unnotified land. Sub-clauses 1 to 4 of Section 27A read as follows:
27A. Change of nature of unnotified land. - (1) If any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or any other authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, after considering the reports of the Village Officer concerned, pass such orders as deemed fit and proper, on such applications, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water conservancy measures as is deemed necessary:
Provided that, if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures. (3) If the application is allowed, the applicant shall be liable to pay a fee at such rate as may be prescribed:
Provided that, no such fee shall be collected if the applicant proves that the land where the application is allowed is, filled up or naturally filled up before the 4th day of July, 1967, the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, after completing such procedure, as may be prescribed.
(4) If the application is allowed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall ensure that the reclamation of the un-notified land shall not adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land and shall specify 2025:KER:88662 W.P.(C). No.37444 of 2022 :5: such water conservancy measures as is necessary to ensure such cultivation:
Provided that in specifying such water conservancy measures, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, if he deems fit, refer to satellite maps of the area maintained by Government agencies. (underline supplied) Section 27A (2) mandates that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass orders on the request for a change of nature of unnotified land after considering the report of the Village Officer concerned and after ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water conservancy measures as is deemed necessary and that if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 Ares, ten percent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures. Section 27A(4) further mandates that if the application is allowed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall ensure that the reclamation of unnotified land shall not adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land and shall specify such water conservancy measures as is necessary to ensure such cultivation.
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 2025:KER:88662 W.P.(C). No.37444 of 2022 :6: 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 1st respondent there is a specific 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 for removal of a land from the data bank.
The Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner has been duly allowed as per Ext P5 order after entering a finding that the property has been converted prior to coming into force of 2025:KER:88662 W.P.(C). No.37444 of 2022 :7: the Act 2008. After allowing the application in Form 5 and removing the property from the data bank, the rejection of an application under Form 6 for the reasons stated above is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. These are not reasons available to the RDO to reject an application in Form 6, seeking to change the nature of the land.
6. I am of the opinion that the said reasons stated in the impugned orders are not even valid for rejecting a Form 5 application for removal of the property from the data bank. The prime reason stated in Ext.P10 order for rejecting the request for change of nature of land is that as per the report of the Village Officer, the property has not been converted prior to 2008 and further that the property is lying three feet below the road level and that there is water logging in the property. The finding in Exts.P10 and P24 orders that the property has not been converted prior to 2008 cannot be sustained at all, especially for the reason that the RDO himself has passed Ext P5 order whereby the property has been removed from the data bank, on a finding that the property has been converted prior to 2008. Yet another reason stated is regarding the low lying of the land and the water logging in the property. This Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others, 2020 (2) KHC 94 has held that merely for the reasons that the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during the rainy season or otherwise due to the low - lying nature of the property, the property cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land as per the provisions of the Act 2008. This Court in Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, 2021 (6) KHC 316 has also held that merely for the reason that the land is lying low and is waterlogged, same cannot be included as paddy land in the data bank. In view of the categoric declaration of law 2025:KER:88662 W.P.(C). No.37444 of 2022 :8: by this Court in the judgments cited supra, the reasons stated in Exts.P10 and P24 cannot be sustained even for rejecting a Form 5 application, much less an application in Form 6."
The only reason stated in Ext.P14 is that the property is water logged and the same stand is reiterated in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. I am of the opinion that same is not a reason available for the Revenue Divisional Officer to reject an application under Section 27A of the Act, 2008.
6. Accordingly Exts.P13 and P14 are set aside. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer/ Authorised Officer to allow Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon permitting change of nature of land covered by Ext.P6 application, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sm/ 2025:KER:88662 W.P.(C). No.37444 of 2022 :9: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37444/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NO 299/1 DATED 25.1.01 OF THE ANCHAL S R O. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER RECENTLY DATED NIL.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT ENTRY IN THE B.T.R OF ANCHAL VILLAGE IN PATHANAPURAM TALUK, DATED NIL.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE ANCHAL VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 6.1.21.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE DETAILS, TAKEN FROM THE INTERNET DATED 12.3.20 BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.D.O, PUNALUR DATED 12.12.19.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ANCHAL DATED 11.1.21.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANCHAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.D.O, PUNALUR DATED 19.3.20.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANCHAL, DATED 11.12.19.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANCHAL, DATED 6.3.20.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BY THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 22.2.19. Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W PO NO 19743 OF 22 DATED 17.6.22.
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.3.21.
2025:KER:88662 W.P.(C). No.37444 of 2022 : 10 : Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 6.10.22.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 3 - 01 - 2023 Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF TAX PAID RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE ANCHAL VILLAGE OFFICER DATED - 25 -
01 -2023