JUDGMENT :

C.S. DIAS, J.

1. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 17.66 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.1163/3-1 and 1165/5-2-2 in Kothamangalam Village, Kothamangalam Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The respondents had erroneously classified the property as ‘paddy land’ and included the same in the data bank. By Ext.P2 order, the 2^nd respondent excluded the property from the data bank. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a Form 6 application under Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT and Rules, 2008 (‘Act’ and ‘Rules’ for brevity) before the 2^nd respondent. Surprisingly, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, the 2^nd respondent not only rejected the Form 6 application but also recalled Ext.P2 order passed on the Form 5 application. Ext.P6 order is patently wrong and arbitrary. Hence, Ext.P6 order may be quashed.

2. The 2^nd respondent has filed a statement, asserting that, on receipt of the petitioner’s Form 6 application, the Village Officer had reported that the applied property is not completely converted. Accordingly, the 2^nd respond