J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 12th day of August, 2022 T he petitioner is owner of 19 Ares of land in Survey No.219/7 of Kolazhy Village in Thrissur District. The petitioner obtained the property as per title Deed No.1874/2013 of Thrissur Sub Registry office.

2. The petitioner states that the land is not a paddy land. It is not fit for paddy cultivation either. However, in the year 2013, the District Collector initiated proceedings alleging that the petitioner was attempting to reconvert the paddy land. A JCB was also seized from the area, alleging illegal conversion.

3. The petitioner states that the land actually is not a paddy land and it ought not have been included in the Data Bank. It was only for the reason that the land was erroneously included in the Data Bank, Ext.P3 proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application in Form-5 requesting the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the land from the Date Bank. The petitioner approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.11044 of 2021. This Court, as per Ext.P7 judgment, has directed the Revenue Divisional officer to consider Form-5 application and pass appropriate orders therein.

4. The petitioner states that pursuant to the directions in Ext.P7 judgment, the Revenue Divisional Officer has considered the issue. The Revenue Divisional Officer in Ext.P8 proceedings practically found that the land is not a paddy land. The land was not cultivated with paddy for long years. There is also a finding in Ext.P8 that there are newly constructed buildings around the area. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer declined to remove the land from Data Bank for the reason that Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings are still pending.

5. The petitioner states that the land is not a paddy land. It was not cultivated with paddy for a long time. The land is not fit for paddy cultivation either. Still, proceedings have been initiated which culminated in Exts.P3 and P4 orders. The petitioner can succeed in those proceedings, only if the status of the land is properly ascertained and the land is removed from the Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer ought not have declined Form-5 application of the petitioner for the sole reason that Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings are pending.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

7. It is evident that proceedings were initiated on the basis of an allegation that the petitioner is converting the land illegally and unauthorisedly. It was at this stage that the petitioner noted that the land is included in the Data Bank. Therefore, in order to remove the land from the Data Bank, the petitioner has submitted Form-5 application. The Revenue Divisional Officer considered Form-5 application pursuant to the directions of this Court. Ext.P8 proceedings would show that the land is not cultivated with paddy. There are other buildings in the nearby areas. There is a specific finding that paddy cultivation was not done in the land. There are yielding coconut trees in the property. In spite of all these factual findings, the Revenue Divisional Officer did not pass an order removing the land from the Data Bank for the sole reason that Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings are pending. 8. This Court is of the view that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not justified in taking a decision on merits on the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5. The most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation. The Revenue Divisional Officer, if he was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSREC. Ext.P8 proceedings to the extent it does not take a final decision on Form-5 application cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

In the circumstances, the writ