JUDGMENT

The writ petition has been filed praying to quash Ext.P8 to the extent it directs the petitioner to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer for deleting his property from the published Data Bank and for a direction to respondents 4 and 5 to take appropriate steps to issue erratum notification for excluding the property having an extent of 1.37 acres in Sy.No.416/5 of Kottuvally Village which has been wrongly included in the published Data Bank, despite Ext.P1 decision taken by the Local Level Monitoring Committee on 21.01.2013. It can be seen from Ext.P2 report of the LLMC that the property in question had been converted much before the coming into force of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and the LLMC had recommended to exclude it from the Data Bank. Ext.P2 is the proceedings of the Additional Tahsildar, Paravur relying on Ext.P1 recommendation of the LLMC whereby sanction has been accorded to change the classification of the land extending to

1.37 acres comprising in Sy.Nos.416/5 A and 416/5 B in Kottuvally Village belonging to the petitioner and to issue land tax receipt accordingly. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the property was excluded from the Data Bank, in the final Data Bank which has been published, the said properties are again included. This is evidenced by Ext.P8 letter received by the petitioner from the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bavan, Kottuvally. The petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in WP(C)No.22081/2021 where, in similar circumstances, this Court had directed the LLMC to issue erratum notification including the property covered by the decision and further directed the concerned Tahsildar to reassess the property treating as purayidam.

2. On a reading of the above judgment, I am of the opinion that the dictum laid down applies to the facts of this case also. The learned Single Judge relied on the decision of this Court in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (5) KHC 490] wherein this Court had held that what is to be included in the Data Bank are cultivable paddy land as on the date of coming into force of the Rules that is, on 24.12.2008. Exts.P1 and P2 will clearly show that on facts the properties belonging to the petitioner were not cultivable paddy lands on the relevant date.

3. In such circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The

4th respondent is directed to issue erratum notification removing the properties belonging to the petitioner from the published Data Bank. Since the property has already been re-classified in the BTR, no further directions will be required in that regard. The 4th respondent shall effect the erratum notification within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE sn APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3394/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE

4TH RESPONDENT LLMC HELD ON 29.01.2013 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 27.02.2013.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29.05.2013 OF THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, PARAVUR.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BEARING NO.E3

5505/15 DATED 10.07.15 FROM THE KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THIS 1.37 CENTS REFERRED IN EXT-P1 REPORT OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER WHERE THE CORRECTION IS CARRIED IN PURSUANT TO EXT-P2 ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, PARAVUR IN THE THANDAPER REGISTER OF PETITIONER Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER WHERE THE SUBESEQUENT CORRECTION IS CARRIED IN PURSUANT TO EXT-P2 ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, PARAVUR IN THE THANDAPER REGISTER OF PETITIONER Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER WHERE THE CORRECTION IS CARRIED IN PURSUANT TO EXT-P2 ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, PARAVUR IN THE T