Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Kerala) – Section 27A – Rule 12(1) – Form 5 and Form 6 Applications – Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) – Power to Review or Recall – Absence of Authority – Procedural Irregularity.
2025 KER 46600 : 2025 (6) KLR 273 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2214 : 2025 KHC OnLine 685
High Court of Kerala, Coram: C.S. Dias, J.
WP(C) No. 19385 of 2024; Decided on: 27th June 2025
The petitioner, owner of 17.66 Ares of converted land in Kothamangalam Village, challenged the RDO’s Ext.P6 order, which recalled an earlier Ext.P2 order excluding the property from the paddy land data bank and rejected the petitioner’s Form 6 application for non-agricultural use. The High Court held that the RDO lacked authority under the Act and Rules to review or recall the Ext.P2 order passed on the Form 5 application. The RDO’s suo motu inspection and reliance on findings beyond the Village Officer’s report for the Form 6 application were deemed procedurally erroneous. The Court quashed Ext.P6, restored Ext.P2, and directed the RDO to reconsider the Form 6 application in accordance with Section 27A and Rule 12(1) within two months.
Cases Referred:
-
Nikkie Varughese John v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Muvattupuzha (2024 (2) KHC 499)
-
Manoharan K v. District Collector, Kannur (2024 (4) KHC 606)
Keywords: Paddy Land, Wetland, Data Bank, Form 5 Application, Form 6 Application, Revenue Divisional Officer, Procedural Error, Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.
For Petitioner : Adv. Arya Ashokan For Respondents : Adv. Vidya Kuriakose (Sr. Government Pleader)
K/930/2020 |
 K/1635/2003 VIDYA KURIAKOSE 9633777462 KERALA HIGH COURT |
