JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

1. The above writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P5 and for a declaration that the petitioner’s property having a total extent of 40.57 Ares covered by Ext.P1 is not liable to be included in the data bank.

2. Petitioner is the owner and in possession of 2.22 Ares of property in survey no. 133/2-2, 20.9 Ares in survey no. 133/3, 0.7 Ares in survey no. 133/21, 2.83 Ares in survey no. 133/2-4, 6.88 Ares in survey no. 133/2-3 and 7.67 Ares in survey no. 133/2 of Kizhakkambalam Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The above properties of the petitioner are lying contiguously as a single plot abutting public road within the Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat. The property covered by Ext.P1 tax receipt was originally paddy land and was converted to dry land prior to the coming into force of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (in short “Act of 2008”). The 1st respondent, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) of Kizhakkambalam Grama panchayat prepared Ext.P2 data bank and the petitioner’s property covered by Ext.P1 tax receipt is recorded as ‘converted land’ and incorrectly included in Ext.P2 data bank. Since the petitioner’s property was converted more than 30 years before the inclusion of property in Ext.P2 data bank as ‘converted land’, the same is erroneous and is liable to be removed from the data bank. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application before the 1st respondent to correct the entries in respect of the property in the data bank and sought to remove the description of the property as paddy land in the data bank. The petitioner has also preferred an application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha seeking permission to use the property for purposes other than agriculture. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 23224 of 2018 seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 application submitted before the 1st respondent and the application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 11.07.2018 directed the 1st respondent to consider the application for correction in the data bank in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This Court in Ext.P4 judgment issued a further direction that if the petitioner secures enabling orders, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (in short “KLU Order”) within a period of three months. Consequent to the direction issued in Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner’s property was inspected and thereafter the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P5 letter dated 20.10.2020 to the petitioner stating that after physical inspection of the property, it was found that the property consists of residential building and large number of trees and therefore the 1st respondent decided to record the entire property of the petitioner as converted land in the data bank. It is aggrieved by Ext.P5 letter that the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

4. As per Ext.P2, the property of the petitioner has been included in the data bank with a remark that it is a converted land. The specific request made by the petitioner as per Ext.P3 was to remove the property from the data bank since it was converted prior to 2008. Ext.P5 would reveal that there is a specific finding that there is a house in existence in the said property and the whole of the property is covered with trees and due to the same, the property should be entered in the data bank as converted land. When the 1st respondent LLMC enters a finding that the property has been converted and that there is a residential house therein and going by Ext P2 data bank, the pr