Due process requires that administrative decisions must be reasoned, complying with prior judicial directives.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and to quash the original of the same;

ii. to declare that Ext. P5 cannot stand in the eye of law in the light of decisions reported in Haridasan Vs. District Collector ( 2023 KHC online 10370 ), Niyas Vs. District Collector, Palakkad ( 2023 KHC online 9342 ), Aparna Sasi Menon Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda ( 2023(6) KHC 83 ) and Muraleedharan Nair Vs. RDO (2023 (4) KLT 270;

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction to the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioners and covered by Ext. P5 by removing erroneous entry in respect of subject land from the data bank;

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

v. 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. Petitioners submitted a Form–5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). That was rejected and the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The same was allowed and this Court directed the authorised officer to reconsider the Form-5 application. Now the Form-5 application is again rejected as per the impugned order.

Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the authorised officer.

First of all, Ext.P5 is not a speaking order. The manner in which a form-5 application is to be considered is dealt in detail in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ]. For that simple reason, Ext.P5 is to be set aside. Moreover, this Court, in Ext.P4 judgment, issued certain directions. The same is also not considered while passing Ext.P5 order. The KSREC report is also available. The same is also not considered properly. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P5 is to be set aside once again and the matter is to be reconsidered by the authorised officer.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider the Form – 5 application in the light of the directions in Ext.P4 judgment and also in the light of the dictum laid down in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ], as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

sd/-