The court mandates reconsideration of land application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, ensuring adherence to established judgments and statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders the application dated 15.05.2027, the subject matter of Ext. P4 and P6, without compliance of the provisions under the provisions of Kerala Construction of Paddyland and Wetland (Amended Act), 2018. Amendment Act in the light of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court cited supra;

ii. To declare that the 2nd respondent is bound to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Clause 6(2) Kerala Land Utilization Order , 1967, subject matter of Ext. P4 and P16 without insisting, compliance of the provisions under Amendment Act in the light of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court. Viz; Tahsildar Vs. Ranjith George (2025 KHC 7012) and Mukthar Ali Vs.

State of Kerala ( 2024 (6) KHC 187 )

iii. issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and to quash the original of the same;

iv. declare that the revenue authorities are bound to reassess the subject property of the petitioner and effect consequential changes in the nature of the property in BTR since the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and Amendment Act are not applicable to the said property;

v. Writ of mandamus to 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P7 by allowing the application dated 15.05.2017(subject matter of Ext. P4 and P6) as expeditiously as possible;

vi. to permit the petitioner to produce translations of the vernacular documents as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court;

vii. issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; ”

[SIC]

2. As per Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the

2nd respondent to consider an application filed in accordance with Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (for short “KLU Order’). It would be better to extract the relevant portion of the order:

“In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P4 order dated nil for the reasons stated hereinbefore and by directing the 2nd respondent to re- consider the application dated 15.05.2017 filed under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the decisions referred to supra and also the observation contained in this judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

Thereafter, Ext.P6 order is passed, in which, it is stated that the petitioner has to invoke Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity).

3. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P6 is to be set aside in the light of Ext.P5 judgment. If the 2^nd respondent has got any grievance against Ext.P5, the 2^nd respondent ought to have filed a review petition or challenge Ext.P5 judgment. Admittedly, Ext.P5 became final. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the 2^nd respondent to considered the application in accordance with the KLU Order as directed in Ext.P5.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

(i) Ext.P6 is set aside.

(ii) The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application treating it as an application, in accordance to the KLU Order, as directed in Ext.P5, and pass appropriate orders, in the light of Ext.P5 judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

sd/-