Proper procedure necessitates challenging prior order rejections for maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;

"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction to the 1^st respondent to take decision on Exhibit P10 within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble court.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction to the 1^st respondent to consider Form 5 and Form 6 application of the petitioner and remove the entry of petitioner’s property from data Bank within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble court."

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner has title and possession over 4.05 Ares of property in Re.Sy.Nos.120/1-9-2 and 140/4-6-2 in Block No.48 of Marayoor Village, on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed dated 04.06.2018 bearing No.1223/1/2018 of S.R.O. Devikulam. The petitioner is residing in a rented house, and he purchased the above- mentioned property for constructing a house. The nature of the property is shown as Nilam in BTR. The nature of the property is shown as ’Karimbu’ in the Village records in Sl. No. 371 in Re- Survey No.140/4, under the name of the predecessors of the petitioner, namely Mayilswami Chettiar, S/o Muthuswami, Puthichivayal. The above-mentioned land had been converted much before the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. So the petitioner submitted Form 5 application invoking Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, before the 2^nd respondent for removing the entry from the data bank and Form 6 application to make necessary changes in the revenue records. The 2^nd respondent has not considered the applications submitted by the petitioner. Then the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.33705 of 2022 before this Court and this Court disposed of that writ petition with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner within two months and dispose Form 6 application within a further period of two months, depending upon the outcome of Exhibit P5 application.

2.1. The 2^nd Respondent considered the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner and rejected the same, vide order dated 30.09.2022, stating that the nature of the property of the petitioner is marked as Karimbu in the Data Bank. The petitioner challenged the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 30.09.2022 by filing W.P.(C) No.20661 of 2023, and this Court set aside the order and directed the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent discriminated the petitioner, vide Ext.P8 letter dated 20.07.2024, stating that the application submitted by the petitioner can only be considered after getting an order from the Government. The 2^nd respondent sent Ext.P10 communication dated 27.01.2021 to the 1^st respondent, requesting to suggest further actions to be taken in the similar applications received seeking conversion of the land as that of the instant case. Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

3. The 2^nd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 31.01.2025 opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of that counter affidavit read thus:

"2. It is submitted that the above writ petition is filed seeking a direction against the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on the Form and Form 6 applications preferred by the petitioner and to remove the Petitioner’s property from data bank. The petitioner is the owner of 04.05 Ares of land in Block-48 Resurvey No. 120/9-2, 140/4-6-2 in Marayoor Village. The said land is recorded as is ’Nilam’ in the BTR and sugar cane in the Data Bank. The petitioner had submitted an online Form-5 application for removing the said land from the Data Bank of Marayoor Grama panchayath.

3. It