The classification and conversion of land is restricted under Act, 2008 unless properly registered in the designated data bank.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction and quash Ext.P7, Order dated 21.02.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent.

ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction and direct the 2nd respondent to delete the petitioner’s property comprised in Re.Sy.No.562/26 (BTR-562/11), 562/27 (BTR-562/12) in Block No.28 of A lathur Village, lathur Taluk in Palakkad District having an extent of 0.0490 Hectare from Ext P4, Data Bank.

iii) It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may dispense the production of English Translation of the documents produced in the above W.P.(c) and Petitioner undertakes to produce the same as and when required by this Hon’ble Court.

And iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice” [SIC]

2. The petitioner’s property though classified as ‘Nilam’, the same is remained as “barren land”, which is not suitable for any paddy cultivation is the submission. The petitioner filed Form 5 application before the 2nd respondent and the same was dismissed without taking note of the fact that the petitioner’s property is kept as ‘fallow land’ from 2008 onwards. The petitioner produced Ext.P5 photographs and also relied the dictum laid down by this Court inMather Nagar Residents A ssociation and nother v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others [2020 (2) KHC 94] . The petitioner also relied Ext.P3 order by which a neighbouring property owner is obtained an order in an application filed in Form 5.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that the authorized officer should reconsider the matter in the light of the different contentions raised by the petitioner. This Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association’s case (supra)

observed like this:

“22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the char A ct eristic features and requirement as is provided under ct , 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the pex Court as well as report of KSREC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of ct , 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under ct , 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSREC is not disputed by the Residents ssociation. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of ct , 2008. That apart on a query made by us, counsel on either side submitted that, the properties in question have access from the National Highway from Kochi to Coimbatore and by the side of Kochi Metro line, which are also admittedly developed areas with large number of residential, commercial and multi utility buildings apart from various educational and religious institutions, thus having no scope for any paddy cultivation.

23. However, the alternative argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the Residents A ssociation is relying upon Ext.P6 and Ext.P13 revenue record filed in the respective writ petitions that the property was recorded as paddy field. Therefore, the petitioner Residents ssociation is not entitled to blow hot and cold at the same time contending that the land is wetlan