Court ruled on procedural compliance for administrative decisions impacting land designation.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P8 and quash the same;

ii. Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to remove the land shown as Nilam (paddy land) in Ext.P1 from Ext.P2 data bank as requested by the petitioner in Ext.P3 forthwith.

iii. issue such other and further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and iv. award costs to the petitioner;

v. Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner herein is the absolute owner in possession of 1.5 Ares in Survey No.61/4 and 7.89 Ares in Survey No.61/5 totaling to 8.94 Ares (22 cents) of Kureekkad Village in Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District. Out of the 8.94 Ares, 4 Ares is already shown as converted land in the data bank. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is coming before this Court for the third time against the denial of his request for correction of entry in the data bank. Ext.P2 is the data bank in which the petitioner’s property is included. The petitioner submitted Form 5 application, as evident by Ext.P3, and this Court, as per Ext.P4 judgment, directed to consider the same. Ext.P5 order is passed rejecting the same. The same was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18423/2023. This Court directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, as per Ext.P7 judgment. Thereafter again Form 5 application is rejected, as per Ext.P8 order. According to the petitioner, Ext.P8 is passed, even without conducting an inspection. Hence, this writ petition.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner took a definite contention that the authorised officer has not inspected the property. Therefore, this Court directed to produce the inspection report of the officer concerned. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader produced the same with a memo.

5. A perusal of the file produced along with the memo would show that on 21.02.2024, a note was entered in the file, to decide the date for inspection of the property. On 22.02.2024, it is noted that the site inspection is to be conducted on 26.02.2024. Thereafter, on 22.02.2024, it is stated that the KSREC report was verified and thereafter, the order is passed on 28.02.2024. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, in the meanwhile, a contempt case was filed by the petitioner and hence, the inspection was advanced. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it is contradictory to the statement filed by the 1st respondent. I do not want to make any further enquiry on that. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that, Form 5 application is to be reconsidered. The authorised officer need not advance the inspection date, simply because, a contempt case is filed before this Court. The authorised officer can file an application before this Court for extension of time, instead of disposing the Form 5 application. The manner in which the inspection is conducted, if conducted, itself, shows that, it is in a mechanical manner. I am of the considered opinion that, the impugned order is to be set aside, and the matter is to be reconsidered once again.

Therefore this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

i) Ext.P8 is set aside.

ii) The authorised officer will consider Ext.P3 Form 5 application as directed by this Court in the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275] , as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of tw