Erroneous land record entries must be rectified per precedent judgments emphasizing assessment compliance.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the 5th respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5 application for re-assessment/ fresh assessment and thereby correct the property as Dry Land/Garden land in BTR, within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court, after giving a opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P3 order of LLMC and without insisting for the removal of the petitioner’s properties from Data Bank and also without insisting for the procedures as per Section.27A of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act .

ii. To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the 5th respondent to change the nature of petitioner’s land in BTR, Thandapper Account and in other Land Records as Dry land/Garden land;

iii. To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the 7th respondent to implement Ext.P3 by removing petitioners property from the Data Bank and to publish a erratum notification for the same in the Kerala gazette;

iv. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext P6 and P7 as unjust and illegal;

v. And to pass such other appropriate orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

vi. to dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and title holder of an extent of 10.80 Ares of land in Survey no.238/4 of Choornikkara Village in Ernakulam District. It is the case of the petitioner that his property was wrongly included in the Data Bank as per Ext.P3. The petitioner submitted an application in accordance with Kerala Land Utilization and obtained Ext.P4 order on 02.04.2022. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application in prescribed format before the 5^th respondent for assessment of land tax. The same was rejected as per Ext.P7 order stating that the property is included in the Data Bank and the petitioner has to take steps to remove the same. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in Tahsildar v. Renjith George [ 2025 (1) KHC 271 . The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:

“13. Our above understanding of the amended provisions, is also in conformity with S.27A(13) of the Amending Act, which mandates that the applications moved after the Amending Act has come into force, shall be decided as per the newly amended provisions. This provision, in our considered opinion, clarifies by implication that such applications which were moved before 30/12/2017, will have to be adjudicated as per the unamended Act.”

5. The same point again considered in Line Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional O Ernakulam ( 2025 KHC 1637 ) and the relevant portion of the same is also extracted hereunder:

“6. Even otherwise, the fact that the property was described in the Data Bank as "reclaimed land", by itself indicate that, the authorities concerned, had applied their mind, conducted an enquiry while preparing the Data Bank and entered into a finding that the property is not a "paddy land" or a "wetland". Therefore, the entry of the said property is an erroneous entry as observed above, which itself is to be removed, without any further enquiry.

8. In such circumstances, in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the above - said decisions, the respondents are bound to remove the