The authorized officer must adhere to previous court directives and consider relevant evidence in Form 5 applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“I. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records and proceedings leading up to the issuance of Exhibit P5 order and quash the same;

II. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd respondent to allow Exhibit P2 application on the basis of the entry shown in Exhibit P1 data bank as dry land and Exhibit P6 satellite report and in the light of the settled position of law as laid down by various cases of this Hon'ble Court;

III. To dispense with the filing of the translated versions of the vernacular documents; and IV. To issue such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner filed a Form 5 application in accordance to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short ‘Rules’). The same was rejected by the authoised officer, and the petitioner challenges the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No.40724/2023. This Court, as per Ext.P4 judgment set aside that order and directed to reconsider the matter. Now, Ext.P5 order is passed again dismissing the Form 5 application. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that, as per Ext.P1 the property is already shown as dryland. The same is not considered by the authorised officer. I think there is force in that argument. Moreover, this Court perused Ext.P5. It is true that an inspection was conducted from the office of the authorised officer. But, Ext.P5 is not a speaking order. This Court in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ], observed the manner in which a Form 5 application is to be considered. Moreover, in Ext.P4 judgment also, this Court directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with the law. The directions in Ext.P4 judgment is also not property complied.

5. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, the impugned order can be set aside, and there can be a direction to reconsider the matter in the light of Ext.P1, in the light of the observations in Ext.P4 judgment and the dictum laid down by this Court in Vinumon’s case (supra).

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) Ext.P5 is set aside.

ii) The 2^nd respondent/authorised o to reconsider Ext.P2 Form 5 application, in the light of directions in Ext.P1 , and also in the light of the observations in Ext.P4 judgment and the dictum laid down by this Court in Vinumon’s case (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-