Court emphasized the need for proper inquiry before classifying land, confirming the inadmissibility of erroneous entries.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

a) “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P8 and to quash the same;

b) Issue a declaration that an extent of a total extent of 26 Ares 84 sq. meters of lands in Bharananganam Village, Meenachil Taluk, comprising of 8 Ares 10 sq. meters in Re- Sy.No.345/2-3, 10 Ares 64 sq. meters in 345/2, and 8 Ares 10 sq. meters in 345/2-2 in Block No.35 is not a paddy land as defined in Sec 2xii) of the 2008 Act, in view of entries and findings in Exhibits P2 and P3.

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 3rd/4th respondent to finalize the application in Form A for re-assessment of the land tax, the subject matter of P6 and to pass orders thereon directing to effect appropriate entries in the revenue records showing the category of subject lands as Purayidom/dry land untrammeled by the inclusion of the same in the data bank with remarks “15 years old coconut and rubber”.

d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 6th respondent to remove the entries relating to 8 Ares 10 sq. meters in Re-Sy.No.345/2-3, 10 Ares 64 sq. meters in 345/2, and 8 Ares 10 sq. meters in 345/2-2 in Block No.35 in Bharananganam Village, from the data bank.

e) Dispense the petitioner from producing the English translation of the documents produced in the writ petition which are in the vernacular language.

f) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, for the ends of justice. “ [sic]

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of a total extent of 26 ares 84 sq. meters of land in Bharananganam Village, Meenachil Taluk comprising of 8 ares 10 sq.meters in Re-sy No. 345/2-3, 10 ares 64 sq. meters in 345/2 and 8 ares 10 sq.meters in 345/2-2 in Block No. 35 which is included in Thandaper No.5845. In view of the non-suitability of paddy cultivation, entry in the Data Bank is shown as “15 years old coconut and rubber”. Exts.P2 and P3 permissions granted under KLU order issued in 2015 and the land was developed after obtaining building permit on the strength of Ext.P4 judgment is the submission. The application in Form-A under the Kerala Land Tax Act , 1961 for re-assessment of land tax and consequential classification of the subject land as 'purayidam'/'dry land' in BTR was processed and Ext.P6 notice in Form-B was also issued. Now, Ext.P8 communication is issued refusing to re-assess the land tax. The petitioner relied the judgment dated 02.03.2026 in W.P.(C.) No. 3289/2026 by which condition No.1 in Exts.P2 and P3 were already set aside. The petitioner also relied the judgment of this Court in Line Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam [ 2025 KHC 1637 ].

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

4. Admittedly, this Court set aside condition No.1 in Exts.P2 and P3 orders passed in accordance to Kerala Land Utilization Order. In Line Properties' case (supra), this Court observed like this :

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.

7. Apart from the above, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P3 notification of the Data Bank itself i