GODWIN R.THATTIL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of 17.66 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.1163/3-1 and 1165/5- 2-2 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 2nd respondent excluded the property from the data bank. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a Form 6 application under Sec. 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 2nd respondent. Surprisingly, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, the 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd respondent directly inspected the property and found that it is lying 1.5 meters 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 Sec. 27B of the Act. The writ petition may be dismissed.

(3.) Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.