1. This is a case in which a Revenue Divisional Officer flouted the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment and also the dictum laid down by this Court in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], even after repeated warnings. I will narrate the facts in brief.

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of an extent of 2 ares 45 sq. metres of land comprised in Re survey No. 416/8-2-2 in Block 004, Cheranallur Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District by virtue of Sale Deed No. 3116/2024 dated 09.10.2024 of Ernakulam SRO. According to the petitioner, the property was converted before the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'Act 2008'). The property is included in the Data Bank. The petitioner submitted a Form-5 application in accordance with Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short 'Rules, 2008') as per Ext.P5. The 1st respondent rejected that application, as per Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 order was passed by Mr Abbas VE, Revenue Divisional Officer/Deputy Collector (RR), working at Kanayannur Taluk at that time. The petitioner challenged Ext.P6 before this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5602/2026. This Court disposed of the writ petition as per Ext.P7 judgment. In the Ext.P7 judgment, this Court specifically stated that, while considering the Form-5 application, the dictum laid down by this Court in Vinumon's case (supra) is to be followed. Flouting the direction, a cryptic order is passed by the 4th respondent, who is arraigned in his personal capacity in this writ petition, as evident from Ext. P8. Hence, this writ petition.

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

4. This Court in Vinumon's case (supra) dealt in detail with the manner in which a Form-5 application is to be considered. This court imposed a cost on that officer and alerted all officers to follow the directions. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder :

                  “20. I am astonished to see such an affidavit from an Officer of the State who was the Revenue Divisional Officer and now working as Deputy Collector attached to Kottayam Collectorate. The Officer has the audacity to file an affidavit before this Court stating that the Ext.P9 order was not prepared by him. He states that the file was submitted by the Junior Superintendent in the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, and he prepared the report, drafted the orders, and submitted them to him. Since a time limit was fixed by this Court and he was in the midst of post - election - related duties, he was compelled to sign the order prepared and drafted by a Junior Superintendent attached to his office! This is the manner in which a quasi - judicial authority is acting! The Officer is not a layman, but rather an experienced officer in the State Government. He filed an affidavit before this Court saying that the order in the Form - 5 application was prepared by his Junior Superintendent, and he only signed it. What a state of affairs is this? This cannot continue. If an election duty is assigned to him, as stated in the affidavit, and he cannot comply with the order within the time prescribed by this court, he may send a letter to the Advocate General's office requesting an extension of time to comply with the order. This court is usually generous in allowing such applications. But the present officer never does that, and he signs an order prepared by his subordinate. This Officer cannot be left free by exonerating him, as requested by the Special Government Pleader. The Disciplinary Authority should consider whether there is any dereliction of duty from his side and, if so, take appropriate steps against the Officer in accordance with law. Moreover, a poor litigant who has to approach this Court for the second time for converting his small bit of land (0.0203 hectares of land) due to the carelessness of this officer, and hence the Officer should pay the cost of these proceedings from his pocket, and I fix the cost as Rs.10,000/-. This is only to strengthen the trust of litigants in the system. No citizen should knock on the doors of the court because of this type of careless attitude from the public servant. It should serve as a warning to all authorised officers considering a Form 5 application in accordance with the Act and Rules, 2008. This Court in the judgment in W.P.(C). No.24043 of 2024 imposed a cost in a similar situation to another authorised officer. These officers will study only if such orders are passed by this court. None of these officers will be allowed to be like the "nephew" mentioned in the story referred to by me in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

                  21. But this Court cannot stop there. The authorised officers should not be allowed to issue such cryptic orders in the future. What is a speaking order is considered by this Court and the Apex Court in several judgments. The Apex Court in Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal, 2024 KHC 6676 observed that quasi - judicial bodies should pass speaking orders. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of that judgment:

                  “12.2. It is settled law that every administrative or quasi - judicial order must contain the reasons. Such reasons go a long way in not only ensuring that the authority has applied his mind to the facts and the law, but also provide the grounds for the aggrieved party to assail the order in the manner known to law. In the absence of any reasons, it also possesses a difficulty for the judicial authorities to test the correctness of the order or in other words, exercise its power of judicial review...............

                  xxxx xxxx xxxx

                  xxxx xxxx xxxx

                  xxxx xxxx xxxx

                  12.6. It is manifestly clear from the above judgments that reasons are heartbeat of every order and every notice must specify the grounds on which the administrative or quasi - judicial authority intends to proceed; if any document is relied upon to form the basis of enquiry, such document must be furnished to the employee; it is only then a meaningful reply can be furnished; and the failure to furnish the documents referred and relied in the notice would vitiate the entire proceedings as being arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice; and before taking any adverse decision, the aggrieved person must be given an opportunity of personal hearing. In the light of the same, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of termination passed against the appellant is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and it cannot be sustained."

                  22. A speaking order by a quasi - judicial authority should be a reasoned decision that clearly communicates findings, the logic behind conclusions, and legal bases for the action taken. Such orders must show that the authority has applied its mind, followed due process, considered the submissions, and given reasons for its decisions. The key steps for writing a speaking order can be summarised in a table:

                

                  23. The Serial Numbers 1 to 6 are only the facts and figures. The speaking order should be narrated in detail in Row 7, analysing the available evidence and the independent assessment of the authorised officer, to determine whether a Form 5 application is to be allowed or dismissed. The order does not need to be in the row and column style mentioned above, but it can be presented in separate paragraphs, as shown in the table above. The dictum laid down by this court regarding the manner in which Form 5 is to be disposed of should be kept in mind while passing the speaking order. The best practices for writing a speaking orders are to use clear and precise language and to avoid vague or generic statements. A speaking order is vital for ensuring transparency and accountability. Therefore, the Chief Secretary of the State should circulate this judgment to all the authorised officers appointed for considering Form - 5 applications in accordance with Rules, 2008 and direct them to follow the above table to write a speaking order. In future, if an order passed in a Form - 5 application is not a speaking order, this Court will be forced to direct the Officer concerned to pay costs to the litigant for unnecessarily approaching this Court again and again. If speaking orders are passed, this Court can also easily dispose of those cases "

                  (Underline and emphasis supplied)

5. After the above discussion, this Court in Ext.P7 judgment issued the following directions to the authorised officer. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment.

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

                  1. Ext.P4 order is set aside.

                  2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 Form – 5 application in accordance with the law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner, if not already called for.

                  3. If satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the authorised officer opts to personally inspect the property, the application shall be considered and disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.

                  4. If the Authorised Officer is either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order, as directed by this Court in the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.”

                  (Underline and emphasis supplied)

6. Flouting the direction number-4 in Ext.P7 judgment and also flouting the dictum laid down by this Court in Vinumon's case (supra), the impugned Ext.P8 order is passed. Ext.P8 order is nothing but the reiteration of Ext.P6 order, which is already set aside by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. In such circumstances, this Court passed an order on 18.06.2026, which is extracted hereunder :

                  “Government Pleader will get instructions from the officer, who passed Exhibit P8 order and get an explanation why he flouted the directions in Exhibit P7 judgment. Sri. Abbas V.E, Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha is suo moto impleaded as additional 4th respondent. The affidavit shall be placed on record on or before next posting date. If the affidavit is not filed, the 4th respondent will appear in person before this Court on that day.

                  Post on 14.07.2026.

                  Issue a copy of this order to the Government Pleader, who will communicate the same to the officer concerned, wherever he is now working.”

7. When the case was called on 14.07.2026, the Government Pleader of this court, Mr Joemon Antony, submitted that the officer had not approached him for filing an affidavit, as directed by this Court, and he dumped a statement to the Advocate General's Office. The fourth respondent was also absent on that day. In such circumstances, this Court passed an order on 14.07.2026, which is extracted hereunder :

                  “Read order dated 18.06.2026.

                  The Government Pleader submitted that the above order was communicated to the addl.4th respondent. No affidavit is filed by the additional 4th respondent.

                  The Station House Officer, Muvattupuzha Police Station is directed to record the arrest of the additional 4th respondent and produce him before this Court.

                  If he executes a bond stating that he is ready to appear before this Court, he can be released after executing the bond. The Government Pleader need not appear for the additional 4th respondent. The additional 4th respondent should engage his own lawyer before this Court.

                  I make it clear that if an affidavit is filed as directed on 18.06.2026, the appearance is dispensed with.

                  Post on 04.08.2026.

                  Issue a copy of this order to the Government Pleader, who will communicate the same to the Station House Officer, Muvattupuzha.”

8. The above order was published in all newspapers on 16.07.2026. The 'Kerala Kaumudi', one of the newspapers with wide circulation in Kerala, reported this order on the front page, along with a statement by the 4th respondent in a separate column. He told the Newspaper that he had already entrusted the affidavit to the Government Pleader and that he didn’t know why there was a lapse on the part of the Government Pleader. The statement given by the 4th respondent to the Kerala Kaumudi Newspaper, which is published on the front page, is extracted hereunder :

                 

9. This statement is not controverted by the 4th respondent subsequently through the same newspaper. The 4th respondent has not denied this news and taken any legal action against the newspaper for wrongly reporting his statement. Moreover, this court need not disbelieve the Kerala Kaumudi newspaper, which is a century-old publication in Kerala, founded in 1911 as a weekly journal and becoming a full-fledged daily in 1940. They are doing only their duty as a newspaper. But the statement given by the 4th respondent to the newspaper is absolutely false. The Government Pleader on that day submitted that, even though the order was passed by this Court on 18.06.2026 and communicated to the officer concerned, the officer concerned refused to approach the Government Pleader. On the previous day, on which the case was posted, the 4th respondent sent a statement to the Advocate General's Office. Therefore, it is clear that the 4th respondent is trying to justify his action by blaming the Government Pleader of this court through the media, even though the facts are otherwise. This court believes the Government Pleader's statement.

10. The lawyers are officers of this court, and their professional role is not confined to serving a client, but they have to submit the facts to the court for taking a just decision by the court. A Government Pleader first became a lawyer and thereafter assumed the charge of a Government Pleader because the Government wanted to defend its case in the court. Judges also come from the legal profession, and it is the court's duty to protect lawyers from unnecessary complaints and allegations. If there are no good lawyers, there are no judges, and the justice delivery system relies mainly on the noble profession of the lawyer.

11. Today, the Senior Government Pleader attached to the Additional Advocate General's Office appeared and submitted that the 4th respondent filed an affidavit as directed by this Court. This Court perused the same. Paragraph 6 of the affidavit is extracted hereunder :

                  “6. I respectfully submit that the order dated 18.06.2026 of this Hon'ble Court was duly communicated to my office. Upon receipt of the said order, steps were initiated for obtaining the relevant records and preparing the affidavit directed by this Hon'ble Court. However, owing to an inadvertent communication gap within the office establishment, the affidavit as directed was not prepared in compliance with the order but only a statement was forwarded to the office of the learned Advocate General which was not suitable to be placed before this Hon'ble Court within the time stipulated. I respectfully submit that the omission occurred on account of administrative miscommunication and was neither deliberate nor intended to disregard the directions of this Hon'ble Court.”

12. Now, what is stated by the 4th respondent in the newspaper is corrected by the 4th respondent in the affidavit filed by him before this Court. That shows that he is blaming an officer of this Court before the Media without any basis, stating that he entrusted an affidavit to the Government Pleader and thereafter submitted an affidavit before this Court stating that he gave only a statement and that he committed a mistake.

13. In addition to this, this Court perused paragraphs Nos. 11 to 13 of the affidavit. It is settled that, by way of an affidavit, a quasi-judicial authority cannot supplement an order. The details mentioned in paragraphs Nos. 11 to 13 are not mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, I have to reject those contentions.

14. This Court, in direction No. 4 of the Ext.P7 judgment, clearly stated that, if the authorised officer is either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order as directed by this Court in the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275] shall be passed. In the affidavit, nothing is mentioned about the above judgment either.

15. In Vinumon's case (supra), this Court specifically stated that this judgment should be circulated to all the authorised officers appointed for considering Form-5 application in accordance with Rules, 2008 and directed to follow the facts stated in the table extracted in the judgment and to write a speaking order. When an earlier writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the Government Pleader to get instructions whether the Chief Secretary had circulated the above judgment to all the authorised officers. The Government Pleader at that time stated that the judgment was circulated to all authorised officers immediately after it was delivered. That shows that the 4th respondent attaches no value to the judgment of this Court or to the direction issued by the Chief Secretary of the State. The controlling officer of the 4th respondent should take note of the 4th respondent's attitude and do the needful in accordance with the law.

16. In addition to all these, an order has now been passed by the present authorised officer, which is produced as an additional document in IA No. 1/2026. The new officer dismissed the Form-5 application under Ext.P9, even though Ext.P8 exists. The new officer has no authority to recall Ext.P8. Therefore, Ext.P9 is also to be set aside.

17. When this Court issued a general direction in Vinumon's case (supra), and the same was circulated to all the authorised officers by the Chief Secretary of the State, the 4th respondent refused to obey the same. This Court, in Ext.P7, also directed that the principle laid down in Vinumon's case (supra) be followed. The same is also flouted by the 4th respondent. This is a clear case in which contempt proceedings are to be initiated. I am not taking such an action in this case, and let the department take appropriate steps in accordance with the law. Let this be a warning to all authorised officers in the State, who have to consider Form-5 applications as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules. The 4th respondent can be mulcted with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-. This Court once again reminds all the authorised officers appointed as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, that if the principle laid down by this Court in Vinumon's case (supra) is not followed while considering the Form-5 application, appropriate proceedings will be initiated and they will be mulcted with heavy cost. The 4th respondent tried to blame a lawyer of this court, who is a Government Pleader, through the media, stating that the Government Pleader has not performed his duty. This is found to be untrue. Therefore, he should pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the Kerala High Court Advocates Association Medical Aid Scheme within a period of one month. If the amount is not paid by the 4th respondent, his controlling officer should deduct it from the 4th respondent's salary and transfer it to the Kerala High Court Bar Association's account.

18. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned orders are to be set aside. I make it clear that I am setting aside the impugned orders because they are not in line with the directions in Vinumon's case (supra). The authorised officer is free to pass fresh orders in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in Vinumon's case (supra) on merit.

                  Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :

                  1) Exts. P8 and P9 are set aside.

                  2) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 Form-5 application in accordance with the law and also in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Vinumon's case (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

                  3) The 4th respondent will pay Rs. 25,000/- as costs to the Kerala High Court Bar Association within one month. If the amount is not paid within one month, the Controlling officer of the 4th respondent will recover the said amount from his salary and transfer the same to the account of the Kerala High Court Bar Association.

                  4) The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the District Collector, Ernakulam, for information and to ensure that the 4th respondent is paying the cost amount to the Kerala High Court Bar Association as directed.