The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review can only be exercised when provided for by the statute, and in the absence of such provision, the authority lacks jurisdiction to review its earlier orders.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 18.10 Ares (44.72 cents) of land comprised in Re.Sy Nos.274/12 and 274/13 in Block No.39 of Puthencruz village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, as per sale deed No. 279 of 2006 dated 11.01.2006 of Puthencruz SRO. The said land is classified as 'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register and included as paddy land in the Data Bank published under Section 5 (4) (i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity, 'the Act, 2008'].

2. The petitioner filed an application dated 29.11.2021 before the 1st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to remove the said property from the Data Bank. The 2nd respondent, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), by Ext. P2, reported that the land was converted before 2008 and recommended to exclude the property from the Data Bank. On the basis of Ext. P2 report, the RDO passed Ext. P3 order dated 24.01.2022 excluding the property from the Data Bank as per Rule 4(4F) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 [for brevity, 'the Rules, 2008'].

3. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext. P4 application in Form No.6 under Section 27A of Act, 2008 before the RDO for change of nature of the land. On receipt of Ext. P4 application, the RDO called for a report from the Village Officer, who submitted Ext. P5 report recommending to allow the application on payment of fees. However, the RDO issued Ext. P7 order dated 21.02.2023 rejecting Ext. P4 application in Form No.6 and recalling Ext. P3 order by which the land was removed from the Data Bank. Ext. P7 states that, as per the site inspection report of the Junior Superintendent, the subject land is lying 1.5 meters lower than the roads and the property on the southern side, and the land has not been converted. The petitioner impugnes Ext. P7 order on the ground that the RDO lacks jurisdiction to review Ext. P3 order passed under the proviso to Section 5(4)(i) of Act, 2008, that too, in a proceedings under Section 27A of the Act, 2008.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

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 the concerned statute, such power of Review cannot be exercised by the authority concerned. This Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania (2010) 9 SCC 437, has held as unde