Inclusion in the Data Bank must reflect actual land classification, and erroneous entries can be challenged and corrected.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of 16.20 Ares comprised in Re-Survey No.82/8-2 of Ezhamkulam Village in Adoor Taluk. The case of the petitioner is that, even though the property was reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter called the Paddy Land Act), the said property was included in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act by describing it as ‘dry land’. In such circumstances, as the petitioner’s property should not have been included in the Data Bank, he submitted an application in Form-5 which was rejected as per Ext.P5. The same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.26666 of 2023, which culminated in Ext.P6 judgment by which the Ext.P5 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the 1^st respondent with a direction to reconsider the same after obtaining a report from the KSREC.

2. In compliance with the said directions, the Ext.P7 report was obtained, and thereafter, the 1st respondent passed the Ext.P8 order, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8.

3. A statement has been submitted by the 1^st respondent in response to the averments contained in the writ petition, wherein they justified the view taken by the 1st respondent in Ext.P8.

4. Heard Sri.C.K.Sherin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Deepa V., learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in Ext.P4 Data Bank itself, the property was described as ‘dry land’. Therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5, should not have been rejected by the 1^st respondent.

6. On going through Ext.P4, I find merits in the said contention. The property of the petitioner is described as Sl.No.322 therein and the property is described as ‘dry land’. It is also specified therein that there are buildings, coconut crops and banana plantain in existence on the property. Thus, the fact that the description of the property in Ext.P4 Data Bank is that of ‘dry land’, clearly indicates that the property was identified by the authorities concerned as ‘dry land’ on the date of preparation of the Data Bank. Since the said entry is made by the competent authorities, on the basis of the details that they collected after ascertaining the physical nature of the property prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act, that cannot be ignored while considering an application in Form-5.

7. As far as the statutory stipulations regarding the conditions/restrictions contained in the Paddy Land Act are concerned, the same are applicable only in respect of the “paddy land” or “wetland” as defined under Section 2 (xii) and 2(xvii) of the Paddy Land Act respectively. As per Sections 2 (xii) and 2 (xvii), specific definitions have been assigned to the “paddy land” and wetland”, and the said definitions contain the characteristics which are necessary for classifying a property as “paddy land” or “wetland”. In this case, as the property is described as ‘dry land’ in Ext.P4, the only conclusion possible is that the competent authorities have applied the criteria contemplated in section 2(xii) or 2 (xvii) of the Act, and made relevant entries in the Data Bank by describing the property of the petitioner as ‘dry land’, which can only be after being satisfied that, it is not a “paddy land” or “wetland”. As far as the conditions/restrictions contemplated under the Paddy Land Act are concerned, they cannot be made applicable to a property which does not satisfy the description of a “paddy land” or “wetland” as defined under the said provisions, merely because of the reas