The Local Level Monitoring Committee lacks authority to reinstate properties in the data bank, necessitating re-evaluation by the District Collector.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of 4.05 Ares in Re-survey No. 524/3-4 of Vechoor Village. According to the petitioner, the afore property was originally described as “Nilam” in the B.T.R. and as “Purayidam” in the draft data bank. The draft data bank is produced as Ext.P2. The final data bank is produced as Ext.P7. In the final data bank, the petitioner states that the property is not included.

2. Heard Sri. K. Vincent, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt. Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

3. The petitioner submitted an application under the K.L.U. Order in the year 2014 (Ext.P4) and a Form 6 application during the year 2022 (Ext.P9). In the meantime, the L.L.M.C., through Ext.P11, sought to include the property again in the data bank, on account of which the petitioner is before this Court through the captioned writ petition. The Form 6 application filed by the petitioner was also rejected by Ext.P14 issued by the RDO. It is seeking to challenge Exts.P11 and P14 issued as above that the petitioner is before this Court.

4. As regards the first issue — the power of the L.L.M.C. to take a decision to include the property again in the data bank — this Court takes notice of the judgment in Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 (1) KHC 685], as per which the L.L.M.C. has no power to re-induct a particular property into the data bank.

5. In the light of the above, Ext.P11 issued by the L.L.M.C. would stand set aside. On the basis of the order issued as above, the subsequent proceedings of the RDO at Ext.P14, rejecting the Form 6 application filed by the petitioner, would also stand set aside.

The petitioner, as already noticed, had submitted an application under the K.L.U Order in the year 2014 (Ext.P4) before the District Collector. In my opinion, the afore application requires to be considered and disposed of by the District Collector. In such circumstances, I direct the 2^nd respondent/District Collector to take note of Ext.P4 submitted by the petitioner and to decide the same on merits as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While passing orders as above, the District Collector shall take note of the principles laid down by this Court in Line Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. RDO ( 2025 KLT Online 1510 ) and Nikkie Varughese John v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector ( 2024 (2) KLT 296 ).

The writ petition would stand disposed of.

Sd/-