The court emphasized the necessity of proper adherence to statutory provisions in land classification, ruling against arbitrary decisions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P8 and P11 orders.

2. It is averred that petitioner has two plots of 4.05 ares each (total 20 cents) in Re.Sy. Nos.76/9/5-1 and 76/9/5-2 of Block No.23 of Marampally Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk. The property was wrongly classified as nilam in the revenue records. However in the final data bank prepared by the respondents as Ext.P2 dated 23.02.2012 the property has been classified as converted land. Petitioner decided to construct a commercial building for which application under Section 27A was filed before the 1st respondent. Reports were called for from the Village Officer. The Village Officer submitted Exts.P4 and P4(a) reports and also Ext.P5 stating that the property is lying as a garden land and therefore a higher fair value has to be suggested instead of Rs.25,000/- per Are reported as per Exts.P4 and P4(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer while considering the application under Section 27A remitted the matter to the Local Level Monitoring Committee to call for a KSRSEC report in respect of the petitioner’s property. Later on, the LLMC based on the said direction by Ext.P8 order included the property in the data bank. After the inclusion, Ext.P11 communication was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector to take proceedings as per the provisions under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, ‘Act, 2008’). It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

3. A statement has been filed by the 5th respondent supporting the impugned orders.

4. It is a fact that in the final data bank prepared as Ext.P2, the property is included as converted land. Now while considering 27A application the matter has been referred to the LLMC and the LLMC as per Ext.P5 decided to include the same in the data bank as ‘nilam’. But a perusal of Ext.P8 would reveal that none of the reasons stated therein are valid for inclusion of the property in the data bank, especially when in Ext.P3 final data bank the property has been included as ‘converted’. Consequent to the same, the RDO has recommended for taking proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, 2008.

5. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, Exts.P8 and P11 are set aside with a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent/authorised o consider and pass final orders on Exts.P3 and P3(a) applications filed by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with the mandate of the Act and the Rules. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-