Court mandates reconsideration of an administrative decision based on existing legal principles regarding land records.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

(i) “To call for the records leading to Ext.P7 and P9 and the orders from the Respondents and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate, writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P7 and P9 orders of the Respondents wrongly including 7.24 Ares of Property comprised in Re-Sy.No:184/3 in Block No:1 of Puthoor Village in the Data Bank and thereby declining to correct the entries contained in the Data Bank and in the BTR and to accept land tax from the Petitioner.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to allow Ext P8 application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5 in Rule 4(D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, 2008 in the light of Ext P5 and P6 and ground realities and correct the entries contained in the Data Bank in respect of 7.24 Ares of Property comprised in Re-Sy.No:184/3 in Block No:1 of Puthoor Village in the Data Bank and correct the entries in the BTR and to accept land tax from the Petitioner.

(iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get allow the application in Form-5 in Rule 4(D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, 2008 in the light of Ext P5 and P6 and ground realities and correct the entries contained in the Data Bank in respect of 7.24 Ares of Property comprised in Re-Sy.No:184/3 in Block No:1 of Puthoor Village in the Data Bank and correct the entries in the BTR and to accept land tax from the Petitioner.

(iv) To dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language.

(v) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” [sic]

2. The petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P9. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 Form-5 application. Ext.P7 is the report of the LLMC and Ext.P9 is the report of the Agricultural Officer. Thereafter, as per Ext.P10, the petitioner was informed that Form-5 application is rejected.

Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the Government Pleader to verify whether any separate order is passed rejecting the Form-5 application because in Ext.P10, it is stated that Form- 5 application is rejected. The Government Pleader after getting instructions submitted that since it happened during the transition stage from offline to online mode, no separate order is passed. If that is the case, the Form-5 application is to be reconsidered in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ]. Therefore, Ext.P10 can be set aside and there can be a direction to reconsider Form-5 application in accordance with law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :

1) Ext.P10 is set aside.

2) The 3^rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P8 Form-5 application, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Vinumon's case (supra) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

22/02/2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2021-2022 TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO:322/2023 DATED 05/05/2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH NO: