The court affirmed the authority's discretion in land classification under the Act, emphasizing the need for evidence to challenge inclusion in the data bank.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order, by which an application under Form 6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 was rejected vide order dated 04.10.2021. The petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged the same in Ext.P6 appeal, wherein Ext.P2 order was affirmed. Thereafter, the property was included in the data bank by Ext.P5 notification dated 10.11.2022. The reason for the rejection of the Form 6 application is that the land in question is surrounded by cultivated paddy fields on the north eastern side, and the land is completely waterlogged for the whole year, and it is only suitable for paddy cultivation. The report regarding the same was given by the Agricultural officer, after a site inspection, leading to ..3.. the property being included in the data bank as per Ext.P5

notification.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the inclusion of the property in the data bank after filing of Form 6 application is wrong. This argument cannot be accepted as, as going by Section 5(4) of the Act, the LLMC was competent to include a property in the data bank, more so by the passing of Ext P2 and P6 that showed the nature of the land. It was the case of the government that even from the stage of the first rejection in Ext.P2, that the property was a cultivable land and that it was surrounded by paddy cultivation. In the said case, the dictum laid down by this Court in judgment in Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam v. M/s Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. ( 2023 (1) KHC 34 ) applies and the only remedy for the person challenging the same is to show that the inclusion was wrong, by filing an appropriate application for removal of the same from the data bank. The findings in Exts.P2 and P6 to the extent that rejects the application under Form 6 ..4.. cannot be held to be wrong.

Accordingly, the challenge to the impugned order fails, and the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Form 5 of the Act for removal of the property from the notified data bank, which should be considered on its merits according to law by the respondents concerned.