The main legal point established is that the Revenue Divisional Officer must independently assess the status of the land and consider the impact of removing the land from the Data Bank on paddy cultivation and wetlands.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 20.23 Ares (7.69+2.02+10.52 Ares) of land in Survey Nos.601/2-1-2, 601/2-2 and 601/2-3-2 in Enanalloor Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk, Ernakulam District.

3. According to the petitioner, the said property will not come within the definition of paddy land or wet land. However, it is stated that the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application in Form 5 under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2008') to remove the property from the Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by Ext.P4 order, rejected the application on the ground that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the land is not converted before 2008 and that it is lying 6 feet below the road level and is seen like paddy land and there are neerchals in the area and LLMC has recommended not to remove the land from the data bank.

4. The petitioner impugnes Ext.P4 contending, inter alia, that the same is vitiated by non application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act, 2008 and the binding precedents of this Court.

5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as paddy land or wet land is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act 2008. On a perusal of Ext.P4, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the coming into force of the Act 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank.

6. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270] has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from the Data Bank, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to remove the land from Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer being the competent authority, has to independently assess the status of the land and come to a conclusion that removal of the land from Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question or in the nearby paddy lands or that it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable.

7. Further, it is trite law that, merely because the land is waterlogged, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. In Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others (2020 (2) KLT 192), a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-

“22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSRSEC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSRSEC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008.”

8. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court has held that the existence of neerhcals in a prop