The court established that erroneous entries in the land data bank must be rectified and that applications for land use should be reconsidered based on judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the Ext.P8 letter rejecting Ext.P4 application under Form-A.

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to reconsider Ext.P4 application taking into consideration the operative portion of Ext.P3 K.L.U order permitting the petitioner to use the land for other purposes.

iii. Issue such other writs, directions or orders as are just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

iv. To dispense with the production of translation of documents in vernacular language.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner herein is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 32.9 Ares of land in Resurvey No.59 (old Sy.No. 4/10) in Block No 63 of Kumaramangalam Village. Ext.P1is the tax receipt. The said property is classified as ‘nilam’ in Ext.P1 is the submission. Earlier the petitioner’s mother applied before the respondent for permission to utilise the property under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (for short, KLU Order) for the purpose of using the land for other purposes. On this application an appropriate enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted, as evident by Ext.P2. After analysing Ext.P2 report the 1^st respondent found that the petitioner is entitled to an order in terms of KLU order and Ext.P3 is the order. The petitioner filed an application under Form-A as per Rule 5(ii) of the Kerala Land Tax Rules , 1972 for effecting corrections and for assessment of tax. Ext.P4 is the application and Ext.P5 is the receipt. The petitioner’s brother filed W.P.(C) No.5393/2024 for the same relief in his share of the property covered by Ext.P3 KLU Order and Ext.P6 judgment was delivered by this Court is the submission. Pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment, Ext.P7 order is passed. Even after changing the nature of a portion of the property covered in Ext.P3 KLU order as per Ext.P7 as far as the property of the petitioner's brother is concerned, the petitioner received Ext.P8 letter in which it is stated hat the application cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether the property of the petitioner is included in the data bank. The Government Pleader submitted that even though it is included in the data bank, the property is shown as converted land. In Line Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam [2025 KHC 1637] , this Court observed like this:

“7. Apart from the above, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P3 notification of the Data Bank itself is not in the format as described in Form 4 of the Paddy Land Rules. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that, in Basil v. Local Level Monitoring Committee (2024 (1) KHC 28) and Anu Mathew v Revenue Divisional Officer (2022 (6) KLT 93) , directions were issued by this Court to remove such erroneous entry even without insisting for Form 5 application, under similar circumstances. Further, in W.A. No.211/2017 , a Division Bench of this Court made certain observations to the effect that, in cases where the property is included in the Data Bank as "converted land", it would only mean that, the conversion of the property took place prior to the coming into force of the Act.

8. In such circumstances, in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the above - sa