The authority must comply with previous court orders in reconsidering applications under conservation laws.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exhibit P-4 order of the 1st respondent.

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent or the officer authorised under Section 2(XVA) of ‘ The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 ’ to re-consider the ‘Form 5’ application filed by the petitioner, after calling forward the satellite maps and fresh reports from the respondents 4, 5 and 6, and also after hearing the petitioner, within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 4th respondent Village Officer to give sufficient reports required under the Act and the Rules to the 1st respondent or the officer authorised under Section

2(XVA) of the Act, without further delay.

iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to declare that the petitioner’s property is not suitable for paddy cultivation and has to be removed from the data bank.

v) Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced along with this writ petition.

vi) Issue such other Writs, directions or orders as this Hon’ble Court may feel just and necessary in the interest of Justice.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner filed a Form-5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and the same was originally rejected as per Ext.P2 order. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court, by filing WP(C) No.20723/2023. This Court set aside Ext.P2 order and directed to reconsider the matter as per Ext.P3 judgment. Thereafter Ext.P4 order is passed. 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 the authorised officer has not followed the directions in Ext.P3 judgment. This Court perused Ext.P4 order. After stating the facts of the case, based on the report of inspection conducted from the office of the authorised officer along with Village Officer, the decision is taken. There is no independent assessment of facts by the authorised officer. Moreover, the directions in Ext.P3 judgment is not considered. The dictum laid down in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ] is also not considered. Therefore Ext.P4 is to be set aside and once again the Form-5 application is to be reconsidered by the authorised officer.

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

1. Ext.P4 is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised o to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner in the light of the directions in Ext.P3 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 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

sd/-