THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Ext.P3 is an application preferred by the petitioner in Form-A in terms of Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. The petitioner obtained an Order in terms of clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, as far back as on 30.06.1997 enabling the user of the land for purposes other than agriculture. Nevertheless, no action is taken on Ext.P3 by the 2nd respondent, is the grievance.

2. Learned Government Pleader would submit that as per Ext.P5, the property is described as 'converted land' in the data bank. The same has to be removed from the data bank, whereafter only, Ext.P3 application in Form-A can be considered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on three judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court. The first is Anand Louis v. Haaris Rasheed [2022 (1) KHC 554], wherein it is held that, if the land is shown as 'converted land' in the data bank, as on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Act, 2008'), it is unnecessary to make any correction in the data bank. The second is Basil v. Local Level Monitoring Committee [2024 (1) KHC 28], which held that the data bank should only contain the details of the property, which is a paddy land or wetland, as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008 and there is no provision for including any other property in the data bank. The case of 'converted land' is specifically addressed to hold that, the same need not be entered into the data bank. The third in line is Line Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam [2025 KHC 1637]. In that case, the entry in the data bank was that of a 'reclaimed land' and this Court held that such description itself would mean that the property in question is not a paddy land or a wetland. On such premise, a direction was given by this Court to remove the property from the data bank, since it was entered with a description 'converted land'.

4. As against the above line of decisions relied upon by the petitioner, learned Government Pleader would point out that a Division Bench of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam v. M/s.Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (1) KHC 34] interfered with a judgment, which directed consideration of application in Form-A without removing the entry in the data bank, and held that the parties should necessarily file an application in terms of the Act, 2008 to remove the wrong entry.

5. However, this Court notice that in M/s.Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the status of the property was 'nilam' as described in the data bank, which justifies the necessity to remove the wrong entry and correct the same. In the instant case, the subject property has been described as a 'converted land' in the data bank, in which case, it is clear that the authorities have applied their minds to find that the property in question is not paddy land or wetland, as held in Line Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra). As per Basil (supra), all what can be entered into the data bank is the status of the property as a paddy land or a wetland. If the property is not a paddy land or wetland as on the relevant date, the status of the same as a 'converted land' etc., cannot be entered into. In such circumstances, the stand of the 2nd respondent that, unless the entry in the data bank is removed, Ext.P3 application in Form-A cannot be considered, can hardly be appreciated.

6. Taking into account the distinction as between M/s.Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the three other judgments of the learned Single Judges, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 application, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that the petitioner shall not be insisted upon to produce records indicating