JUDGMENT :

C.S. Dias, J.

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and direct the 2^nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P5 application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 7.61 Ares of land in Block No.3 of Survey Nos.142/4-2 and 142/4-4 of the Pappinivattom Village, Kodungallur Taluk, Thrissur District, covered by Ext.P1 title deeds and Ext.P3 land tax receipt. The petitioner’s property is a garden land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as paddy land and included it in the data bank. In the said background, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent, based on the observations of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and without independently considering Ext.P5 application, has rejected the same by the impugned Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 is erroneous and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The petitioner’s specific case is that, her property is a garden land. The respondents have erron