High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-01-16Writ petition disposed; Ext. P5 set aside; Ext....

Dolly Michael v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 1571 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman J.
Judgment Date: 2024-01-16
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the Ext. P4 application afresh in light of the cited judgments and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ext. P5 order is set aside.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed; Ext. P5 set aside; Ext. P4 to be reconsidered in light of cited precedents and fresh orders to be passed within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dolly Michael

Respondents

District Collector, Ernakulam Collectorate, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Ernakulam District, Pin – 682 030.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha Pattimattom - Muvattupuzha Road, Muvattupuzha, Kerala, Pin – 686 673.
Local Level Monitoring Committee, Kottappady represented by its Agricultural Officer/Chairman, Ernakulam District, Pin – 686 692.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Peeyus A. Kottam
• Ragesh Chand R.G.

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Amminikutty (Sr. GP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Dolly Michael, claims ownership and possession of 8.64 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 266/5-2, 266/5-3, and 266/5-5 of Kottappady Village. She seeks change of nature of unnotified land under Form 6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, before the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The RDO rejected Ext. P5, indicating that the land lies about one meter below road level, there is a thodu on the eastern side, and the land had not been converted prior to 2008. The petitioner contends that the reasons in Ext. P5 are not contemplated by Section 27A of the Act or Rule 12 of the Rules and that the decision should turn on whether such change would affect the free flow of water to neighboring paddy lands and the cultivation of crops in adjoining lands, with mandatory water conservancy measures if the area exceeds specified limits. The court clarifies, through the statutory framework and appellate jurisprudence, that the sole relevant considerations are water flow and impact on adjoining cultivation, and that conversion decisions must be grounded in those criteria. The court cites Mather Nagar Residents Association, Jessy Abraham, and George Varghose to emphasize that mere low-lying or waterlogged conditions do not automatically classify land as wetland or paddy land. Ext. P5 is set aside, and Ext. P4 must be reconsidered in light of these precedents, with fresh orders within two months. The petition is disposed with directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 27A(2) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Section 27A(4) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 12(4) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 12(5) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Form 6 (as provided in Rule 12)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the Form 6 application under Rule 12 was evaluated only for whether the proposed change would disrupt the free flow of water to nearby paddy fields and affect adjoining cultivation, and that Ext. P5’s grounds—land being below road level, proximity of a thodu, and non-conversion prior to 2008—are not enumerated criteria under Section 27A or Rule 12. She argues that decisions in Mather Nagar Residents Association v. District Collector, Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, and George Varghese v. District Collector establish that mere low-lying waterlogged land cannot automatically be deemed wetland or paddy land and that the RDO must assess water-carrying capacity and agricultural impact rather than technical site conditions alone. Ext. P5 therefore cannot sustain rejection and Ext. P4 should be considered afresh, with due regard to data bank validations and conservancy measures, within a two-month window.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on Ext. P5, which reflects the RDO’s assessment that the land’s ground reality (one meter below road level, proximity of a thodu, and lack of pre-2008 conversion) affects viability for change of nature and may disrupt water flow or cultivation. They argue that Form 6 must be evaluated under the statutory framework of Section 27A and Rule 12, including the Village Officer’s report and, if applicable, Agricultural Officer input for water-conservancy measures, particularly when the area exceeds specified limits. They contend the decision to reject was grounded in statutory requirements and data, and that the Writ Court should not impinge on the administrative prerogative without proper statutory basis.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mather Nagar Residents Association and another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others	2020 (2) KHC 94	Positive	Used to support the proposition that low-lying land or waterlogging alone does not automatically classify land as wetland/paddy land; emphasizes need to apply statutory criteria (water flow and cultivation impact).
Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram	2021 (6) KHC 316	Positive	Affirms that merely being low and waterlogged cannot by itself include land in the data bank as paddy land; aligns with the petition’s interpretation of qualifying criteria.
George Varghese v. District Collector	2023 (7) KHC 93	Positive	Affirms that the core inquiry in Form 6 is whether change of land would affect the free flow of water to nearby paddy fields and adjoining cultivation; supports the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dolly Michael v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 26TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 1571 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` DOLLY MICHAEL AGED 53 YEARS WIFE OF E.M.MICAHEL, EAZHAMATTATHIL HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 692. ``` ``` BY ADVS. PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RAGESH CHAND R.G. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 030.`** - **`2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA PATTIMATTOM - MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, KERALA, PIN – 686 673.`** - **`3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KOTTAPPADY REPRESENTED BY ITS AGRICULTURAL OFFICER/CHAIRMAN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 692.`** ## **`SMT. K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.GP.`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C).No.1571 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8.64 Ares of land comprised in Sy. Nos.266/5-2, 266/5-3 and 266/5-5 of Kottappady Village. According to the petitioner, the property is not suitable for cultivation and is not included in the Data Bank. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application in Form 6 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules 2008’) before the 2[nd] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer. The RDO, as per Ext.P5, rejected the application stating that the property is lying 1 meter below the road level and on its eastern side, there is a thodu and there is presence of water in the property as reported by the Village Officer and that the land has not been converted ``` WP(C).No.1571 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` prior to 2008. The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 order contending that the reasons stated therein are not contemplated under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, ‘the Act’) or under Rule 12 of the Rules 2008. 2. Section 27A (2) of the Act mandates that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass orders on the request for 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 measures as is deemed conservancy necessary and 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. Section 27A(4) ``` WP(C).No.1571 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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. 3. Rule 12 of the Rules 2008 deals with the procedure for change of nature of unnotified land, as provided in Section 27A of the Act. Rule 12(4) provides that on receipt of an application under Form 6 as provided in Rule 12 of the Rules 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. Rule 12(5) mandates that the Village Officer shall also report whether if a change of nature of ``` WP(C).No.1571 OF 2024 ``` ## **`5`** the land is permitted, it will cause any obstruction to the free flow of water to the nearby paddy fields, if any. The Rule 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 of water effectiveness measures that the is conservancy applicant proposing to implement in the property. 4. 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 scrutiny of Ext.P5 order would ``` WP(C).No.1571 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` show 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 in the lands. Ext.P4 crops adjoining application has been rejected based on the report of the Village Officer that the property is lying one and a half feet below the road level and there is a thodu on the eastern side of the property and the land has not been converted. The reasons stated in Ext.P5 for rejecting the application are not contemplated as per Section 27A of the Act or in Rule 12 of the Rules 2008. 5. 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 ``` WP(C).No.1571 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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 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 **George Varghese v. District Collector** [2023 (7) KHC 93], this Court held 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. ``` WP(C).No.1571 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` 6. In view of the categoric declaration of law by this Court in the decisions cited supra, the reasons stated in Ext.P5 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P5 order is set aside. There will be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to consider Ext.P4 application afresh in the light of the decisions cited supra and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Sd/- ## **`MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE`** SPR ``` WP(C).No.1571 OF 2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 09.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IN SY.NO. 266/5-2, 266/5-5, 266/5-3-2 OF KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE VALIDATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL DATA BANK USING REMOTE SENSING AND GIS TECHNOLOGY BY THE KOTTAPPADY KRISHI BHAVAN CONDUCTED BY KSREC. EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25-01- 2022. EXHIBIT P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. ```