Table of Content
1. the petition requests quashing specific orders regarding land payment obligations. (Para 1)
2. submissions were made regarding fee objections and case precedents. (Para 2)
3. court ordered specific actions on the writ petition regarding fee processing. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. call for records leading to Ext.P5 and P8 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P5 and P8 in so far as it directs payment of amount as regularization charges under Sec. 27A of Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act .

ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to pass orders on Ext.P4 and P7 without insisting on payment of any amount as is made in Ext.P5 and P8, within such time as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

iii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 2, 3 and 4 to correct the entry in the revenue records, changing petitioner’s land covered by Ext.P3 and P6 from nilam to garden land, within such time as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

iv. issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.

v. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.

vi. dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced as Exhibits in the writ petition.

(SIC)

2. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration on

06.02.2026, this Court recorded the following submission of the Government Pleader:

“The Government Pleader submitted that, she is not opposing Ext.P8 fee notice because the property covered in Ext.P8 is below 25 cents. But, the Government Pleader submitted that, she is objecting the challenge against Ext.P5 because, as per Ext.P2 document, the property is more than 25 cents and the point is against the petitioner in State of Kerala v. Moushmi Ann Jacob [2025 (2) KHC

163].

Post on 23.02.2026.”

3. As per the submission of the Government Pleader, Ext.P8 fee notice may not stand in the light of the fact that, the property covered as per Ext.P8 is below 25 cents. But the Government Pleader submitted that she is objecting the challenge against Ext.P5 because, as per Ext.P2 document, the property is more than 25 cents and the point is against the petitioner in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in State of Kerala v. Moushmi Ann Jacob [2025 (2) KHC 163] . The counsel for the petitioner also fairly submitted that she will be satisfied if Ext.P8 notice is set aside. If that is the case, Ext.P8 can be set aside and there can be a direction to process the Form-6 application filed as far as that property is concerned. As far as Ext.P5 is concerned, the petitioner has to pay fee in accordance with law.

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

1. Ext.P8 notice is set aside. The authorised officer is directed to process the Form-6 application without insisting fee, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, if it is otherwise in order.

2. Once the fee as far as Ext.P5 is paid, the authorised officer will process the Form-6 application in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date on which the fee is paid.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE JV

Judgment reserved	NA
Date of Judgment	23.02.2026
Judgment dictated	23.02.2026
Draft Judgment placed	24.02.2026
Final Judgment uploaded	25.02.2026

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 20018 OF 2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT REPORTED IN 2022(6) KHC 50 ( MARYSADAN APG PVT. LTD V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, EKM AND OTHERS )

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2698/06 DATED 13.09.2006 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 30.05.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF FORM 6 APPLICATION DATED

Click Here to Read the rest of this document