JUDGMENT :

C.S.Dias, J.

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 2^nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P2 application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).

2. The petitioners are the owners in possession of 3.64 Ares of property in Survey No.341/320 (Re-Survey No.341/1J) of the Ramanattukara Village in Calicut District, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner’s property is a dry land. There are trees and other plantations in the property. The property is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the petitioners’ property as paddy land in the data bank. In the said circumstances, the petitioners had submitted Ext.P2 application to remove their property from the data bank. The 2^nd respondent, solely relying on a report of the Village Officer, has rejected Ext.P2 application by the impugned Ext.P4 order. The entire procedure followed by the 2^nd respondent is irregular and improper. Going by the scheme of the Act, the 2^nd respondent ought to have called for a report from the 5^th respondent and then, independently evaluated the natur