JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Call for the records leading Ext.P8 and may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the same.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 6^th respondent to delete the entry in the published data bank of including the land of the petitioner, 2 acres 15 cents in Sy. No.502/1 of Mayannur Village, in the interest of justice.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner challenged Ext.P8 communication issued by the Tahsildar (LR), in which it is stated that the petitioner has to file appropriate application in Form-5 in accordance to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 .

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner obtained an order in accordance to Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU) as evident by Ext. P2 and the same was obtained by the predecessor of the petitioner. But the Government Pleader submitted that, even if there is KLU order, once the property is included in the data bank, the petitioner has to file a Form-5 application in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam v. M/s. Po