ORDER

1.Heard the learned Government Pleader for the review petitioner in R.P.No.132/2022, the learned counsel for the review petitioner in R.P.No.871/2022 and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/Writ Petitioner.

2.R.P.No.132 of 2022 is filed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the Village Officer, Kadamakudy against the judgment dated 9.9.2021 in W.P.(C).No.5566 of 2021, while RP No.871 of 2022 is filed by a third party with leave of this Court seeking to review the judgment. The writ petition was filed contending that 64.40 Ares of property belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.504/1 of Kadamakudy village was entered as 'purayidom' in the basic tax register. It was contended that the property was wrongly included in the data bank as 'paddy land'. This Court, by judgment dated 8.2.2018 in W.P.(C).No.4395/2018, had directed the consideration of the application to remove the property from the data bank, but the same was not considered. A memo had been placed on record in the writ petition, appending the report of the Village Officer after conduct of the site inspection. It was stated that all relevant documents were examined and the property stands included as 'purayidom' in the revenue records. In the above circumstances, this Court had directed the consideration of Exts.P7 and P7(a) applications submitted by the petitioner.

3.It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the review petitioners in R.P.No.132/2022 that W.P.(C).No. 29595/2016 had been preferred by the Green Nature Club, the review petitioner in R.P.No.871 of 2022, as a public interest litigation. Sri.Babu John, who was the previous owner of the property was a party to the said writ petition. By Annexure II judgment dated 11/7/2019, a Division Bench of this Court had directed the RDO to pass a speaking order on the representation made by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard to the owner of the property. It is submitted that the RDO had conducted a hearing and had directed the Agricultural Officer to retain the subject property in the Data Bank as Nilam. A copy of the order of the RDO dated 20/12/2019 is produced as Annexure II in R.P.No.132/2022. It is submitted that Annexure III KSREC report dated 10/6/2019 would show that the property was converted some time after 2014 and that therefore the contention that the property was 'purayidom' is completely incorrect. It is submitted that these documents could not be produced at the time of hearing of the writ petition. A copy of the old BTR showing the property as 'Nilam' and the relevant entry in the BTR after resurvey showing the property as 'Purayidom' are produced as Annexures IV and V respectively along with R.P.No.132/2022. It is contended that it is specifically the property which is the subject matter of Anneuxre 1 judgment that has been purchased by the writ petitioner and that in the light of the order passed by the RDO, the request of the petitioner for removing the property from the data bank could not be considered.

4.R.P.No.871/2022 is filed by a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act. It is contended that they had preferred W.P.C.No.29595/2016 alleging illegal reclamation of paddy land in Re Survey No.504/1 of Kadamakudy village, Kanayannur Taluk. It is submitted that the property was entered as 'Nilam' in the basic tax register before the resurvey. After conduct of the resurvey, the property was erroneously considered as 'purayidom'. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by Annexure 2 judgment, pursuant to which the property was retained in the data bank. It is stated that further steps for correcting the mistake which occurred in the BTR has also been taken by the appropriate authorities in accordance with law.

5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent in the review petitions would contend that the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land