JUDGMENT P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J. This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs: (II) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow Exhibit P-3 Form 6 application as prayed for without imposing any condition to the effect of retaining any portion of land in the data bank, which is already excluded from the data bank as per Exhibit P-2 order. (III) Issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the 1 st respondent has no authority to review his own final order passed in Form – 5 application as per Exhibit P-2, while dealing with application filed under Form- 6 in view of the dictum laid down by this Hon’ble court in a decision reported in 2025 (4) KHC 519 “ Godwin R. Thattil v. RDO ”. (IV). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st or 2 nd respondent to pass fresh orders on Exhibit P-3 Form – 6 application after hearing the petitioner in view of decision reported in 2025 (4) KHC 519 “ Godwin R. Thattil v. RDO ” within a time limit. (V) To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents (VI). Award cost of this Writ Petition to the petitioner. (VII). Issue such other relief this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." [SIC] 2. Petitioner submitted a Form - 5 application for the property having an extent of 16.64 ares of land out of 18.03 ares in Survey Nos.289/ 7-1 & 289/ 7-2 of Nedumpram village in Thiruvalla Taluk. The said property was included in the data bank, and therefore, the petitioner filed a Form -5 application. The Form- 5 application was allowed as per Ext.P2 order for an extent of 16.64 ares. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Form - 6 application on 15.10.2024 as evident by Ext.P3. This Court directed the 1 st respondent to consider the same, as evident by Ext.P4 judgment. Now, as per Ext P5, the Form - 6 application is allowed, permitting conversion of an extent of 15.34 ares of land out of 16.64 ares of land and ordered to retain an extent of 1.3 ares of land in the data bank based on the report of the Village Officer saying that the said 1.3 ares of land seems to be water logged portion of the land. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Nikkie Varughese John v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Moovattupuzha [ 2024 (2) KHC 499 ] . 3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. 4. It is an admitted fact that the Form-5 application filed by the petitioner is allowed, for the entire extent of 16.64 ares of land. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a Form-6 application. The Authorised Officer has no authority to retain 1.3 ares in the data bank, while considering a Form-6 application. This Court in Nikkie Varughese John's case (supra) considered this point in detail. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder: “ 5. The petitioner's land was included in the Data Bank published in terms of S.5(4)(i) of Act, 2008. The proviso to S.5(4)(i) provides for removal of land from the Data Bank by filing an application in Form 5 under R.4D of Rules, 2008 to the RDO and the RDO shall dispose of such application after following the procedure set out in R.4(4E) and R.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 S.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 S.5(4)(i) read with R.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. 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 under: "........12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute / rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial / quasi - judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar, AIR 1965 SC 1457 and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh, AIR 1966 SC 641.) 13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, 1971 (3) SCC 844 : AIR 1970 SC 1273 , Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, 1979 (1) SCC 321 , Kuntesh Gupta (Dr.) v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, 1987 (4) SCC 525 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 491 : AIR 1987 SC 2186 , State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records and Settlement, 1998 (7) SCC 162 and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain, 2008 (2) SCC 705 : 2008 (1) SCC (Cri) 537 this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly / specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act / Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction. 14. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction. 14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible." The Act, 2008 or the Rules framed thereunder do not confer any power on the RDO to Review an order passed for removing a land from the Data Bank. Ext. P7 order withdrawing Ext. P3 order cannot therefore be sustained. Accordingly, Ext. P7 order to the extent it recalled Ext. P3 order is set aside.” 5. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Authorised Officer has to reconsider the Form - 6 application as far as 1.3 ares of land is concerned. Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions: 1. Ext.P5 is set aside to the extent it rejects the Form - 6 application for an extent of 1.3 ares of land situated in survey Nos. 289/ 7-1 & 289/ 7-2 of Nedumpram village. 2. The 1 st respondent/Authorised O directed to reconsider the Form-6 application as far as 1.3 ares of land is concerned, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.