If you own a plot in Kerala that has been described as “Nilam” in the revenue records, or entered in the “Data Bank”, you may already know the problem. You apply for a building permit, a loan or a change of land use, and the application is stopped because the land is “in the data bank”.

The usual first step is an application in Form 5. The Kerala High Court has dealt with Form 5 applications many times, especially in the last two years, and it has made the authorities’ duties clear. This blog explains what Form 5 is, what the authority must examine, and what you can do if your application is rejected or ignored.

Let’s talk about Form 5.

1. What is the Data Bank?

The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules framed under it protect paddy land and wetland from being converted for other uses. To do this, the Rules provide for a Data Bank of paddy land and wetland.

As the High Court explained in P.S. Lalu v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No. 19437 of 2020, decided 25 September 2020), the Data Bank is prepared in stages. The Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer prepare a draft from the revenue records. The Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) then examines it, using satellite pictures. The finalised Data Bank is then notified.

Mistakes can happen at this stage. Land that was never a paddy field, or was already built on well before 2008, can still end up in the Data Bank.

2. What is Form 5?

Form 5 is the application a person aggrieved by an entry in the notified Data Bank files to have the entry corrected, that is, to have the land removed. It is filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), who acts as the authorised officer under Rule 4 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

Form 5 is not an application to convert land. It asks the authority to find that your land should never have been in the Data Bank. Applications to change the nature of land are made separately, in Form 6, and they are decided on a different test. In Nalupurappattil Afsal v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No. 383 of 2021, decided 27 January 2026), the High Court held that an RDO had rejected a Form 6 application on grounds (such as the land having wetland features) that belong to a Form 5 inquiry. The Court set the order aside and told the RDO to apply the correct parameters.

3. Is a Form 5 application compulsory?

In practice, yes. In State of Kerala v. Leela (Review Petition No. 1 of 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 453 of 2025, decided 25 March 2026), the High Court corrected its own earlier judgment. The earlier judgment had directed that land be excluded from the Data Bank without a Form 5 application. On review, the Court held that, reading Section 5(4) of the Act with Rule 4(4d) and Rule 4(4f), the authorised officer can exclude land only on an application by an aggrieved person.

The Court also noted that the LLMC can correct the Data Bank on a review application by an aggrieved person under Rule 4(6) to (8), and that the authorised officer and the LLMC have concurrent jurisdiction. The Court then directed the authorised officer to consider the Form 5 application within six weeks.

The lesson is simple. Even a strong case on the facts needs a properly filed Form 5. Without it, a court may send you back to file one.

A refusal that cites the Data Bank can also arise in other contexts. In Bindu Soman v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No. 30530 of 2021, decided 10 April 2025), a Gram Panchayat declined to consider a building permit for an existing residential building because the property was “included in the data bank”. The High Court directed the owner to file a Form 5 application within one month. It directed the RDO to obtain the necessary reports, including from the Agricultural Officer, and decide within three months. If the decision favoured the owner, the Panchayat was to decide the permit application without delay.

4. What must the authority examine?

This is where most Form 5 applications are won or lost. The High Court has repeatedly held that the authorised officer cannot reject an application by simply following the Agricultural Officer’s report.

In a series of recent decisions, including Damodaran Prabhakar v. RDO (W.P.(C) No. 48376 of 2025, decided 6 January 2026), Betty Xavier v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No. 1803 of 2026, decided 16 January 2026) and Hridya Mohan v. RDO (W.P.(C) No. 40245 of 2025, decided 30 October 2025), Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan set aside rejection orders on the same grounds:

  • The order was passed solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report.
  • There was no sign that the officer had inspected the property or called for satellite pictures, as Rule 4(4f) requires.
  • There was no independent finding on the nature and character of the land on the relevant date.
  • The officer did not consider whether excluding the land would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.

The Court held that the competent authority “is obliged to assess the nature, lie and character of the land” and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008. These are “the decisive criteria to determine whether the property merits exclusion from the data bank”.

The same approach appears in Hussain v. District Collector (W.P.(C) No. 8886 of 2024, decided 7 March 2024). The Court observed that “none of the parameters for consideration of a Form 5 application has been taken into account”. It directed the RDO to obtain a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre on the status of the land in 2008 and to decide within two months of receiving it.

5. Is paddy cultivation actually possible on the land?

The authority must also ask whether the land is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO (W.P.(C) No. 7513 of 2023, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 488), Justice N. Nagaresh held that the question is whether paddy cultivation is feasible, and that the Act’s purpose is to conserve paddy land and wetland, not the environment in general.

The Court made three useful points:

  • Very small plots surrounded by commercial or residential buildings are unlikely to be feasible for paddy cultivation, even if it is technically possible.
  • For larger plots, proper irrigation facilities are important.
  • Land is not suitable for paddy merely because it was once cultivated with paddy.

The Court also refused to accept the mere presence of water channels on the land as decisive, in the absence of evidence that they were indispensable to nearby paddy cultivation. The RDO’s rejection was set aside.

The High Court has also held that fallow land is not automatically paddy land. In Mather Nagar Residents Association v. District Collector, Ernakulam [2020 (2) KHC 94], the Court held that land falls within the definition of “paddy land” only if it is suitable for paddy cultivation and left fallow, and that the RDO must be satisfied of both.

6. The revenue record is not the last word

Many owners are told that the land is “Nilam” because the Basic Tax Register or the tax receipt says so. The High Court has held that the Act works on the facts on the ground. In Shahanaz Shukkoor [2009 (3) KLT 899], the Court observed that the mere description of land as “Nilam” in the revenue records is not enough to assume that it cannot be used for any other purpose.

This is why evidence of the actual condition of the land, such as buildings around it, the trees on it, the absence of any cultivation and the nature of the neighbouring plots, is so important in a Form 5 application.

7. The authority must give a reasoned decision

Whatever the outcome, the order must be a speaking order. In the 2026 decisions above, the High Court directed that the application be decided with a speaking order, “whether the application is allowed or dismissed”, following Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275].

A rejection that simply repeats the Agricultural Officer’s report, or a standard form of words, is open to challenge in a writ petition.

8. What if the application is pending for years?

Form 5 applications often wait a long time for a decision. The High Court has been willing to step in.

In Beena L. v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No. 5685 of 2026, decided 30 March 2026), the owner’s Form 5 application dated 15 October 2022 was still unresolved in 2026, partly because the file had been returned over a fee payment for the satellite image. The Court gave time-bound directions. The owner was to upload the payment proof within two weeks. The Agricultural Officer was to submit the report within one month of receiving the fee. The authorised officer was to consider the application within one month of the report.

The Court has also observed that an application under a statute must be considered by the competent authority “in accordance with the law, with a reasonable time”. A writ of mandamus directing the authority to dispose of the application within a fixed period is the usual remedy.

What should a landowner do?

If your land is in the Data Bank and you believe it should not be, first find out:

  • Is the land actually in the notified Data Bank? Get the entry confirmed from the Village Office or the Krishi Bhavan.
  • What was the nature of the land on 12 August 2008? Was it ever cultivated with paddy?
  • What is around it? Are the neighbouring plots built up, or still paddy fields?
  • Is paddy cultivation realistically feasible on it, given its size, access and water supply?
  • What documents do you have from the period before 2008?

Documents that usually help include:

  • Title deeds and the chain of ownership
  • Basic Tax Register extract and tax receipts
  • Location sketch and recent photographs
  • Old photographs, building permits and other evidence showing the condition of the land before 2008
  • A copy of the Data Bank entry

Then file the Form 5 application before the RDO with full documents and grounds, and keep the acknowledgment. If it is rejected without a proper inquiry, or if it sits undecided, the remedy is a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

How RJ Legal Associates helps:

Getting the application filed is only half the problem. In many cases, the real difficulty is getting it decided. Form 5 and Form 6 applications can stay pending for years, while the owner cannot sell, build or use the land.

At RJ Legal Associates, this is the work we do. We file writ petitions before the Kerala High Court to expedite the disposal of pending Form 5 and Form 6 applications. In these petitions, we ask the Court to direct the RDO or the authorised officer to consider the application and pass a reasoned order within a fixed time.

We assist with: 

  • Writ petitions to expedite pending Form 5 applications
  • Writ petitions to expedite pending Form 6 applications
  • Writ petitions against Form 5 and Form 6 rejection orders passed without proper inquiry or a speaking order
  • Reviewing your Form 5 or Form 6 application, the Data Bank entry and the documents before filing
  • Follow-up with the RDO, Agricultural Officer, Village Officer and the LLMC after the Court’s directions

Know your land. Know your records. Protect your property.

This blog is for general information and is not legal advice. The position may differ on the facts of each case.