Compliance with Form 5 is not required if property is converted land as per data bank.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 33029 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S:

LINGON JOHN, AGED 56 YEARS S/O JOHN, KADEPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENNOOR DESON, KOTHAD P.O, NOW RESIDING AT KARIPPAI ROAD, KALAMASSERY P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683104 BY ADV SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)

RESPONDENT/S:

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001

2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030

3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER/CONVENER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN, KADAMAKKUDY, KOTHAD P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682027

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAMAKKUDY, PIZHALA, KOTHAD P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682027 GP SMT PREETHA K K THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

---------------------------------------------

WP(C) NO. 33029 OF 2024 ------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 11th day of November, 2025

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order or direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P3 application in form No.7 without insisting for the compliance of the directions issued in Exhibit P5 and without insisting for Form No.5 proceedings.

b) To set aside the directions issued by the 1st respondent in Exhibit P5 after finding it arbitrary and illegal.

c) To dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

d) To issue such other writ order or directions which are deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner's property having an extent of 36.9 Ares in survey No.381/1-3 of Kadamakkudy Village is not notified as paddy land in the data bank, but it is recorded as converted prior to 2001, as evident by Ext.P2 data bank, and it is an unnotified land. So the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in Form No.7, for change of nature of the property, as provided under section 27A(2) of the Kerala Conservation of paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008, before the 1^st respondent. But it is submitted that the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P5 stating that the application is returned and instructed the petitioner to submit Form 5 proceedings.

3. The petitioner relied on the judgments, inAnu Mathew v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2022 KHC 5586 ] and Basil v. Local Level Monitoring Committee [ 2024 (1) KHC 28 ].

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader also.

5. In Anu Mathew’s case (supra), this Court observed that, in cases where the property is shown as the converted land in the data bank, there is no requirement for an application in Form 5 for the purpose of considering an application in Form 6.

In such circumstance, I am of the considered opinion that the prayers in this writ petition is to be allowed. Therefore this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

I) Ext.P5 is set aside.

II) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to consider Ext.P3, after getting necessary reports from the jurisdictional Village Officer and Agricultural Officer, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AJ

2012 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED

29-7-2024 IN FORM NO.7 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhi