Court emphasizes procedural remedies through appeals rather than writ petitions for challenging administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ quashing the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting Form-7 application.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s Form-7 application in the light of the Form-6 allowed order and Kerala Gazette notification dated 20-02-2023, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(iii) Declare that the 34.92 Ares, in Re-

Survey No.227/2, Block No.38 of Meenadom Village, Kottayam Taluk of the petitioner as garden land and that respondents are bound by the Gazette-published Form-6 order and cannot rely upon obsolete Data Bank entries.

(iv) Considering the exigencies and necessity for urgent consideration of the grievance voiced in this Writ Petition, production of English translations of documents in vernacular, may kindly be dispensed with for the time being;

(v) Issue any other writ, order, or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice"

[SIC]

2. Ext.P5 is an order passed in a Form – 7 application submitted by the petitioner. Admittedly, Ext.P5 is an appealable order. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. The petitioner is free to file an appeal before the appropriate authority in accordance with the law.

3. At this stage, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to file an appeal.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. The petitioner is free to file an appeal against Ext.P5 order, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. If such an appeal is filed, the 2nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

3. If there is any delay in filing the appeal, the

2^nd respondent will condone the delay in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Udayan Vasudevan v. District Collector, Trivandrum [2025 (2) KHC 103] .

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM

23.09.2002 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.1614 OF 2002 OF SRO PAMPADY IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS (FILE NO.314/2022) DATED 27.08.2022 OF 3RD RESPONDENT/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ALLOWING FORM 6 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA GAZETTE (EXTRAORDINARY) NO.606 DATED 20-02- 2023 PUBLISHING CORRECTION NOTIFICATION NO.A2-2610/20 BY WHICH EXCLUDED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM DATA BANK EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF FORM-7 APPLICATION DATED