JUDGMENT : 1. The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 3 to 6 to take steps to issue erratum notification by excluding the lands covered by Ext P1 land tax receipt, from the Notified Data bank of Thripunithura Municipality. ii) Declare that lands covered by Ext P1 in Nadama Village Owned by the petitioner is neither a paddy land nor wetland as defied in Act 28 of 2008. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2 nd respondent to consider and dispose Ext.P4 application in form No. 7, on the basis of Ext P3 decision/ order and Ext P10 report and in the light of the judgment in Moushmi Ann Jacob V. State of Kerala , 2023 (5) KHC 339 , without insisting an application in Form No. 5 , and grant permission to change the nature of land covered by Ext P1 land tax Receipt. iv) grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petition. v) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.” [SIC] 2. The petitioner is in ownership and in possession of 40.47 Ares of land comprised in Re.Sy. No.26/13 in Block No.31 of Nadama Village, Kanayannur Taluk. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application in Form-7 to change the nature of the above mentioned land. According to the petitioner, the land was excluded from the Data Bank by the 3 rd respondent LLMC vide Ext.P3 decision. But, the decision was not implemented and hence the same was not published in the Gazette. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 4(8) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, respondents 3 to 6 have to take steps to issue erratum notification. It is also submitted that, as per Section 27A (3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short “Act, 2008”), the petitioner has to pay the prescribed fee for changing the nature of land. The 1 st respondent decided to allow Ext.P4 application and issued Ext.P5 notice demanding fee subsequently. Ext.P5 notice was set aside by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment. The 1 st respondent decided to allow Ext.P4 application and issued Ext.P5 notice demanding fee subsequently. Ext.P5 notice was set aside by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment. Now, the prayer of the petitioner is for a consideration of Form-7 application without insisting an application in Form-5 of the Act, 2008. It is also submitted that, subsequently a new Data Bank is published in which the petitioner’s property is included, ignoring the decision of the LLMC. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court, in judgment dated 21.11.2025 in WP(C) No.38049/2025 considered a similar case. It will be better to extract the relevant paragraph of the above judgment: “5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. It is an admitted fact that, as per Ext.P2, LLMC decided to exclude the property from the data bank. Due to some procedural delays, it has not been published in accordance with the law. For that reason alone, the petitioner need not suffer, and he need not file an application in Form-5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, taking it as a special case, there can be a direction to consider Form-6, without insisting on Form-5 application, in the light of Ext.P2 decision already taken by the LLMC. There can be a direction to the Secretary of the Municipality also, to do the needful to publish the notification in the light of Ext.P2. I also make it clear that this order need not be taken as a precedent.” 5. It is true that, this Court observed that, it need not be taken as a precedent. But, this Court in Surendran v. State of Kerala ( 2023 KHC 91 ), also considered the same point. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the same also: “3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner in possession of 16.52 Ares of land in Vadakkencherry - I village in Alathur Taluk, Palakkad district. It is submitted that he had submitted an application for removing the property from the Data bank and the same was allowed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee by Ext.P3 proceedings dated 17/9/2021. It is submitted that he had submitted an application for removing the property from the Data bank and the same was allowed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee by Ext.P3 proceedings dated 17/9/2021. However, the removal of the property from the Data bank was not carried out and notified. On that ground, Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner is not being considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the corrected Data bank is not notified, the application submitted by the petitioner in Form - 6 is liable to be considered taking note of Ext.P3. It is further submitted that a Circular has been issued by the Government on 30/4/2020 specifically directing that in cases where Form - 5 applications have been allowed, the consideration of Form - 6 applications need not await the notification of the Data bank. 4. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the opinion that the application submitted by the petitioner in Form - 6 is to be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to take up Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner and to consider and pass orders thereon, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 6. In the light of the above judgments of this Court, I think, the respondents cannot insist a Form-5 application for considering the Form-7 application of the petitioner. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: 1. The 2 nd respondent is directed to consider the Form-7 application after getting necessary report from the 5 th respondent, without insisting an order in a Form-5 application, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 2. The 6th respondent is directed to pass erratum notification based on Ext.P3 decision, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.