An authority lacks the inherent power to review, recall, or cancel its own quasi-judicial orders once passed, unless such power is expressly conferred by the governing statute.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

--------------------------------

W.P(C) No. 32229 of 2025

-------------------------------

Dated this the 05th day of June, 2026

JUDGMENT

1. The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"(i) issue a writ of certiorari and to quash Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P6;

(ii) to declare that Exhibit P4 order is as provided under Section 27A of the Paddy Land and Wetland Act and it is just, proper and valid;

(iii) to declare that 1st respondent ceases to have any power to pass Exhibit P5;

(iv) to direct 1st respondent to uphold Exhibit P4;

(v) to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents; and

(vi) to grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner and three others purchased 7.79 Ares of land in RS No.174/IDPT5 in Padne Village, Kasaragod district as per Ext.P1 sale deed, is the submission. Though in the revenue records, category of Ext.P1 property is termed as ‘nilam’ and it is not so, as it was converted decades back and it is a pakka paramba with aged coconut trees, is the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a Form – 6 application and the same was allowed as per Ext.P4. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P5, by which the Form – 6 application was rejected stating that the property of the petitioner was mistakenly excluded from the data bank. The petitioner challenged the same before the 2nd respondent, and as per Ext.P6, Ext.P5 was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

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

4. It is an admitted fact that the Form – 6 application submitted by the petitioner was allowed as per Ext.P4. Thereafter, the same authorised ofÏcer recalled the same and cancelled the same as per Ext.P5. This Court in Nikkie Varughese John v. Revenue Divisional OfÏcer/Sub Collector, Muvattupuzha [2024 (2) KHC 499] observed like this:

“5. The petitioner's land was included in the Data Bank published in terms of Section 5(4)(i) of Act, 2008. The proviso to Section 5(4)(i) provides for removal of land from the Data Bank by filing an application in Form 5 under Rule 4D of Rules, 2008 to the RDO and the RDO shall dispose of such application after following the procedure set out in Rules 4(4E) and 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 Section 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 Section 5(4)(i) read with Rule 4(4F), removing a land from the Data Bank. It is trite law that the power of Review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any such provision in the statute, such power of Review cannot be exercised by the authority concerned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and others v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2019) 9 SCC 416: 2019 (5) KHC 215], citing previous rulings, reiterated that the power of review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same. The Court held as under:-

“12. It is settled law that the power of Review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any such provision in