The court affirmed the necessity of following statutory procedures for data inclusion, emphasizing that the authority to manage the Data Bank lies solely with the designated Committee under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

P.M. Manoj, J.

1. The captioned appeals arise from the judgment dated 21.11.2024 in WP(C) No.20360 of 2021 and the order dated 27.03.2025 in RP No.184 of 2025 respectively.

2. The appellant is the additional 3^rd respondent who is stated to be owner of the property, adjacent to the parcel of paddy land having an extent of 36.02 Ares, owned by the 1^st respondent in Survey No.376/1A(1) and 376/1(A)2 of Alangad Village in Paravoor Taluk. It is the case of the appellant that, on the introduction of the KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT , 2008 (for short ’the Act’), the above mentioned property of the 1^st respondent was not included in the Data Bank, though it was allegedly recommended by the Committee constituted under the Act. The appellant’s attempt to include the property in Data Bank resulted in Ext.R3(a) communication to the Agricultural Officer to include the land in Data Bank. It was also stated to be in the agenda of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (for short ’LLMC’) convened on 13.10.2014 and a decision was taken to finalise the proceedings after conducting a site inspection. However, that did not fructify.

3. In such circumstances, the appellant preferred a complaint before the District Collector which was forwarded to the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam, who in turn forwarded it to the Agricultural Officer, Kadungallur to include the same in the Data Bank. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent, RDO, took a decision to include the property in the Data Bank on 26.02.2020 and Ext.P22 final Data Bank evidences that the property is included in the Data Bank. That was challenged by the 1^st respondent herein in the writ petition. By allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge declared that the inclusion of the property in the Data Bank is wrong and directed the 1^st respondent to approach the appropriate authorities under Section 27A, but there was no declaration regarding Ext.P22. The Review Petition preferred by the 1^st respondent against judgment dated 21.11.2024 was considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge decided to quash Ext.P22, by which the property in question was included in the Data Bank, by modifying the judgment. It is against the judgment in the writ petition as modified by the order in the Review Petition that the captioned writ appeals are preferred.

4. Originally, the 1^st respondent purchased the property comprised in Survey No.376/1A(1) and 376/1A(2) of Alangad Village, Ernakulam District as per sale deed No.7734/2007 dated 26.11.2007 of Alangad SRO. Though the property is classified as ’Nilam’ in Revenue Records, it was not included in the Draft Data Bank produced as Ext.P2. Under such circumstances, the 1^st respondent approached the Revenue Divisional Officer under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short ’KLU Order’). The said application was allowed as per order dated 30.04.2019 by the RDO, Fort Kochi. Such order was passed by the RDO after considering the report by the Village Officer, Alangad and the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer, Kadungalloor wherein categorically reported that the property has coconut palms approximately 30 years old and was not included in the Data Bank as the same was not recommended by the LLMC after conducting site inspection and examining the report obtained from KSREC on the direction of this Court. The physical boundaries of the property are the Panchayat road on the East, buildings on the West and North sides and main road on the South side.

5. After a thorough evaluation of Ext.P20 order of the RDO, Fort Kochi and in th