Land classification must follow legal procedures established by the applicable act.

O R D E R

Dated this the 1st day of December, 2021 These review petitions are filed at the instance of the State Officials. These are taken up along with Cont.Case No.618/2021. The Cont. Case is arising from the judgment of this Court whereby this Court directed the revenue officials to restore the description of the land as purayidom. The description as purayidam was effected long back i.e., much before the Kerala Conservation Of Paddy Land And Wetland Act , 2008 came into force. This Court also observed that the land was also not included in the Data Bank. When no action was taken to restore the description RP 620 & 621/2021 of the land in BTR, the Cont. Case was initiated. The Tahsildar appeared before this Court. It was pointed out before this Court that the actual lie of the land would show that it is paddy land and not purayidam. This Court orally allowed the revenue officials to initiate action in accordance with law to include the land in the Data Bank. It appears that LLMC was convened. There was some dispute regarding resolution. According to the learned Government Pleader though in the meeting a decision was taken by the majority to include the land in question in the Data Bank, later some of them retracted. The Chairman submitted that he has not signed the resolution. As of now the land is not included in the Data Bank; the dilemma continues. So long as the land is not included in the Data Bank, the revenue officials cannot claim that it is to be included in the Data Bank. The land can be included in the Data Bank only as per the procedures of the , 2008. I find there is no error apparent in the judgment. The review petitions are RP 620 & 621/2021 therefore, dismissed. However, I make it clear that the description to be shown in the BTR as purayidam will not stand in the way of any competent authority to include the land as a paddy land in the Data Bank in accordance with law.