Statutory review powers must be explicitly conferred by law; unauthorized review efforts are null.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i. To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order, calling for the records leading to the Ext. P7 notice and Ext.P14 order and quash the same;

ii. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order direction directing 3rd respondent to restore Ext. P5 order allowing Form 5 application;

iii. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order direction directing to accept Ext P6 dated 21/11/2022 having application No.1/2022/1359022 and grant the relief prayed for therein namely change of the correction of the revenue records regarding the nature of the land ;

iv. Dispense with the translation of vernacular documents;

v. To issue such other further reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” (SIC)

2. The petitioner’s predecessor filed a Form-5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008. The same was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Form-6 application. After considering the Form-6 application, fee notice was issued as evident by Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, the property he owned is only about 5 cents and he need not pay any fee. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) 32482/2023. This Court as per Ext.P12 judgment directed the authorised officer to process Form-6 application without insisting on the payment of fees demanded in the notice, if the extent of land held by the petitioner and his predecessor is less than 25 cents. Thereafter, when there was non compliance, the petitioner filed a contempt case. At that stage, Ext.P14 order is passed, by which the Form-6 application is rejected and the order allowing the Form-5 application also cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The Government Pleader takes me through the statement filed by the 3rd respondent.

5. It is an admitted fact that the Form-5 application was originally allowed and Form-6 application was processed and fee notice is issued. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court directed to process the Form-6 application without insisting fee. Thereafter, the authorised officer has no authority to set aside the Form-5 order already passed and to reject the Form-6 application. This point is considered by this Court in Nikkie Varughese John v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Muvattupuzha [ 2024 (2) KHC 499 ]. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:

“5. The petitioner's land was included in the Data Bank published in terms of S.5(4)(i) of Act, 2008. The proviso to S.5(4)(i) provides for removal of land from the Data Bank by filing an application in Form 5 under R.4D of Rules, 2008 to the RDO and the RDO shall dispose of such application after following the procedure set out in R.4(4E) and R.4(4F). The RDO, exercising the said powers and procedures, has removed the land from the Data Bank as per Ext. P3 order. On removal of the land from the Data Bank, when the petitioner submitted Form No.6 application under S.27A of the Act, 2008 for change of nature of the land, the RDO issued Ext. P7 order rejecting the application and recalling Ext. P3 order by which the land was removed from the Data Bank. The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 or the Rules framed thereunder do not confer any powers on the RDO to review an order passed under S.5(4)(i) read with R.4(4F), removing a land from the Data Bank. It is trite