The central legal point established in the judgment is that a property covered by a previous order under the Kerala Land Utilization Order should not have been included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.82 Ares of land in Re-Survey Nos.11 and 12 in Block No.47 (Old Survey No.161/3) of Nadama Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. It is submitted that the land along with a residential building was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2004.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted applications under the Kerala Land Utilization Order for using the land for other purposes and by Ext.P2 judgment dated 30.08.2017, the said application was directed to be considered. It is submitted that pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, the LLMC had considered the matter and had placed Ext.P3 report before the District Collector pointing out that the property was dry land and that there is a house aged more than 28 years in the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P6 order had ultimately been passed granting permission to the petitioner under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization order on 23.01.2020 after Ext.P4 proceedings has been set aside by Ext.P5 judgment and a reconsideration had been ordered. Pursuant to Ext.P6 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 representation along with an application under Form A under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for effecting the corrections/alterations in the Basic Tax Register and by Ext.P8 judgment, this Court had directed the consideration of the same. It is submitted that when the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for an implementation of the directions contained in Ext.P8 judgment, the petitioner was told that a data bank had been notified as on 10.02.2021 and that the petitioner’s property, which was the subject matter of Ext.P6 order under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, had again been included in the notified data bank. It was therefore contended that the petitioner would have to seek exclusion from the data bank by filing an application in Form 5.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner's property is already covered by an order under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order as evident by Ext.P6, the property could not again have been included in the data bank since the property was not paddy land or wetland as on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short ‘the 2008 Act’). Ext.P11 judgment of this Court is relied on in support of this contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on a decision of this Court in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (5) KHC 490] to contend that the data bank to be prepared is the data bank of the cultivable paddy lands as on the date of coming into force of the Rules, that is, on 24.12.2008 and that the properties which are specifically covered by orders under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization order cannot be included in the same.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that since the property in question is covered by Ext.P3 report and Ext.P6 order, the inclusion of the same in the notified data bank was evidently by an oversight.

5. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the provisions of law and the precedents on the point, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as sought for. In view of the fact that the property of the petitioner is covered by Ext.P3 report and Ext.P6 order which records that the property was, admittedly, dry land as on the date of the coming into force of the 2008 Act and the Rules made thereunder, I am of the opinion that the property would not be liable to be included in the data bank prepared under the Act. The inclusion of the property in the data bank is, therefore, apparently a mistake and done without considering Exts.P3 and P6 and the said inclusion cannot stand in the way of the reassessment of the land and the reclassification of the same as directed by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment.

6. In the above view of the matter, this writ pe