The court emphasized the necessity of proper consideration by the relevant authorities when reviewing applications regarding property removal from the Data Bank.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P12, wherein the application submitted by them for removal of the property from the Data Bank has been rejected mainly for the reason that the Local Level Monitoring Committee [for short, ‘the LLMC’] has not recommended for the removal of the property from the Data Bank. Petitioners have produced Ext.P9 decision of the LLMC, which reveals that the LLMC has taken a decision that the request for removal of the property from the Data Bank could be granted, if the petitioners make an undertaking to construct a concrete canal for the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to make such construction.

2. Taking into consideration the fact that there is a finding in Ext.P12 to the effect that the LLMC has not recommended for removal of the property from the Data Bank, I am of the opinion that there is total non-

application of mind on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer while issuing Ext.P10. Yet another aspect to be noted is that in Ext.P8 judgment, the Court directed the LLMC to take a decision on the application for removal of the property from the Data Bank, but later petitioners submitted application in Form No.5 before the RDO.

In view of the above, I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P12.

Therefore, Ext.P12 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 4^th respondent/authorised Officer to consider the matter in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, considering the report of the LLMC and the KSREC report and getting the opinion of the Agricultural Officer and after conducting a site inspection. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-