JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the property comprised in Survey No.2/193 of Chokli Village in Kannur District covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The property was not included in the databank. The petitioner preferred Ext.P2 application under Form 6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008, (for short' the Act and the Rules')seeking permission for a change of user of the property.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 report submitted by the Village Officer along with a sketch clearly shows that there was no paddy land near the petitioner's property and that, the petitioner's property had coconut trees and other improvements. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) had, again called for a report from the Village Officer who then reported that the property was surrounded by mangroves. By Ext.P9, the RDO rejected the application preferred under Form 6 holding that the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) had taken a decision, as per Ext.P13, to include the property as a wetland in the databank. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order passed by the