ground that the requisite application has not been submitted in the prescribed form 22A format. Similarly, Exts.P-11 and P-13 were also rejected by P-19, citing the same ground, regarding the nonsubmission of the application in the prescribed form 22A format. Those rejection orders as per Ext.P-18 and P-19 herein were challenged by the petitioners before this Court by instituting W.P.(C).No.33985/2010. By Ext.P-20 judgment rendered by this Court on 18.11.2011, the said Writ Petition, W.P.(C).No.33985/ 2010, was allowed by quashing those impugned rejection orders at Exts.P-18 and P-19 herein, with the further direction to the respondents to reconsider the matter in the light of the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Aboobacker v. District Collector, reported in 2011 (3) KLT 822. Incidentally, it may be noted that a learned Single Judge of this Court in the above referred case in Jameson's case supra reported in 2006(3) KLT 186, has held that the impugned prescription in Rule 16A of the State rules is ultra vires the Act to the extent it insists that every application for reference to the courts both under Sec.18(1) as well as 28A(3) should necessarily be made in form 22A. A contrary view was taken by another learned Single Judge in the ruling in Narayaniamma v. Special Tahsildar, reported in 2008(2) KLT 206, wherein it was held
