HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

W.P.(C) No.29335 of 2022

Dated this the 9th day of June, 2026

JUDGMENT

Heard Smt. Geethanjali representing Sri.S. Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. With respect to an extent of 27.92 Ares of property in Sy.Nos.1326/11 and 1326/11-2 in Kothamangalam Village, the petitioner states that he submitted Ext.P6 application under the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules’) for changing the nature of the unnotified land. In reply, the petitioner states, the petitioner came across the endorsement at Ext.P7, directing the petitioner to prefer a Form 5 application under the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the question of filing of Form 5 application arises only in a situation where the property is included in the data bank and since in the case at hand, admittedly the property is not finding a place in the data bank, the application at Ext.P6 ought to have been considered and disposed of on merits.

3. The learned Government Pleader also states the in view the averments in the writ petition, if the property is not included in the data bank, the application at Ext.P6 requires to be disposed of in accordance with law.

In the said circumstances, taking note of the contention raised by the petitioner that the property referred to above is not seen included in the data bank, there will be a direction to the authorised officer to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 application filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Court also notices that at Ext.P5 has also been submitted by the petitioner, requesting for change with respect to the description of the property in the Revenue Records, the afore application also requires to be considered while disposing of Ext.P6 as above.