The removal or correction of land data bank entries under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, requires a formal application by the aggrieved party as a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdictional power by the authorities.

C.S. DIAS, J.

R.P No. 01 of 2026 in W.P(C). No.453 of 2025

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2026

O R D E R

The State of Kerala and its Officers have filed this review petition on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment because this Court has directed the property belonging to the respondents 1 and 2 to be excluded from the data bank without them submitting an application in Form-5 as contemplated under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder (‘Act’ and ‘Rules”, for brevity). The review petitioners were respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition; respondents 1 and 2 were the writ petitioners; and the 3rd respondent was the 5th respondent. For convenience, the parties are referred to by their litigating status in the review petition.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed the writ petition, inter alia, to declare that 16.38 Ares of land belonging to them, comprised in Block No.207 in Re-Survey No.20 in Edappally North Village in Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, had been erroneously included in the data bank, though it is classified as the ‘converted land’. By the impugned judgment, this Court directed the 2nd review petitioner (‘Authorised Officer’, for short) to exclude the property from the data bank property and the 3rd respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee ('LLMC', for brevity) to publish an erratum notification in the above regard. However, the respondents 1 and 2 have not submitted an application in Form 5, which is a condition precedent under Rule 4 (4d) for the Authorised Officer to exclude a property from the data bank. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment. Hence, the judgment may be reviewed.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, refuting the allegations in the review petition. They contend that, in Line Properties Pvt. Ltd v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam [2025 (2) KLT 348] and Anu Mathew v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2022 KHC OnLine 5586], this Court has held that an erroneous entry in the data bank has to be removed without any enquiry. The principles laid down in the above decisions apply on all fours to the facts of the present case. The contention that the authorised officer is not empowered to exclude a property from the data bank without submitting an application in Form 5 is incorrect. It is well settled that a statutory authority has the inherent and suo motu power to correct its own mistake, even without a statutory provision. Furthermore, after the writ petition was initially dismissed, the judgment was reviewed by order in R.P.No.320/2025. Then, the respondents 1 and 2 submitted an application (Ext. R1(c)) in Form 5 before the Authorised Officer on 13.01.2025. The review petition is meritless and, therefore, may be dismissed.

4. Heard; Smt. Vidya Kuriakose, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri. Shibin K.F, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader draws the attention of this Court to Section 5(4) of the Act and Rule 4 (4d) of the Rules and submits that an Authorised Officer is empowered to exclude a property from the data bank only on receipt of an application. She places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others (2006 KHC 1319) and contends that a “jurisdictional fact” is a fact which must exist before a Court/Tribunal/Authority, for it to assume jurisdiction. The existence of a jurisdictional fact is sine qua non for the exercise of power by an authority of limited j