IMPORTANT POINT
The rejection of an application for land classification cannot be based solely on the presence of a water canal without evidence of adverse effects on neighboring lands.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent 4 Ares 45 Sq. Meters comprised in Sy.No.316/4-22 in Thalakkad Village, Tirur Taluk of Malappuram District. The grievance of the petitioner is that, even though the property of the petitioner stood reclaimed much prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Paddy Land Act'), the same continued to be described as 'Paddy Land' in the revenue records.

2. In such circumstances the petitioner submitted an application in Form 6 to classify the property of the petitioner as ‘Purayidam’. The said application was however, rejected by the 3^rd respondent as per Ext.P1 order dated 17.10.2022. The order of rejection as per Ext.P1 was passed by the 3^rd respondent, accepting the report of the Tahasildar to the effect that on the southeastern side of the property, there is a water canal and, therefore, the property is to be included in the Data Bank.

3. Challenging Ext.P1, an appeal was submitted before the 2^nd respondent, which culminated in Ext.P4 order by which the said appeal was rejected, confirming Ext.P1 order. The reason mentioned for rejection of the appeal was that, in the Data Bank published, the property is included. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Exts.P1 and P4 orders.

4. A statement is filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent in response to the averments contained in this writ petition. In the said statement, it is averred that the property of the petitioner originally formed part of a larger holding having an extent of 3 Acres and 9 Cents. However only 9 cents is included in the Data Bank which seems to be a clerical error as the entire extent is of such nature that it is eligible for inclusion into the Data Bank. In the said statement, averments were also incorporated, justifying the stand taken by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in Ext.P1 and P4 orders.

5. Heard, Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Amminikutty. K, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. The main challenge raised by the petitioner is against Exts.P1 and P4 orders by which the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 6 which was rejected. Evidently, both these orders were passed mainly on the reason that the property is to be included in the Data Bank. The petitioner has produced Ext.P2 Data Bank wherein the property of the petitioner is included as the “converted land since 2004”. Thus, it is evident that, even going by the Data Bank, the property was converted prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act. The fact that the property was included in Ext.P2 Data Bank as a converted land, itself is an indication that it stood reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act. It is to be noted in this regard that a notification on Data Bank is made, after conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 4 of the Paddy Land Act, by the Agricultural Officer based on the physical inspection of the said property. Moreover, Section 5 (4) (1), contemplates for preparation of a Data Bank with details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland and this would mean that what is intended to be included in a Data Bank is only the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland. The fact that the property was included in the Data Bank as “reclaimed land” by itself indicates that it is an erroneous entry which need be removed and the condition imposed under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act cannot be made applicable to those lands. Therefore, the fact that the property was included in the Data Bank as a “converted land” cannot have any consequences, as far as the property of the petitioner is concerned, when it comes to the question of considering an application submitted by the petitioner in Form 6.

7. When coming back to the challenge against Exts.P1 order, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, even in the repor