Misclassification of land in Data Bank mandates reconsideration under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" a) To issue a Writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P-9 Order and quash the same.

b) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction commanding the 2^nd Respondent to reconsider and allow the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioners on the basis of Data bank and KSREC report with regard to the property as on 2008.

c) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the 6^th respondent to file a report before the 2nd and 5^th respondent with regard to the nature and lie of the petitioners property in 2008. "

[SIC]

2. Petitioners submitted Form-5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008. According to the petitioners, as per Ext.P3 databank, the petitioners' property is described as 'Houses'. Even then, the Form-5 application was rejected as per Ext.P5 is the submission. The petitioners challenged the same by filing WP(C) No.8556/2024. This Court vide Ext.P6 judgment set aside the said order and directed to reconsider. Again, the Form-5 application was rejected as per Ext.P8. Thereafter, again another order is passed by the same Officer, as evident by Ext.P9. In both these same Form-5 applications, is dismissed consecutively one after the other. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard.

4. Ext.P7 is the KSREC report. It will be better to extract the "Observation and Conclusions" in the KSREC report:

" The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2008, 2010, 2011, 2016 and 2022 for the survey plot.

As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 63/1-7, 63/1-8 & 63/32 was observed as paddy land. The plot was observed under vegetation with scattered plantation in the data of 2008. The same land use pattern was observed to continue in the data of 2010 and 2011. The data of 2016 shows the plot under mixed vegetation/plantation. The data of 2022 shows the plot under scattered mixed vegetation/plantation with a building/structure towards north-east side."

5. In the KSREC report, it is stated that the plot was observed under vegetation with scattered plantation in the data of 2008. In the remarks column of the Ext.P3 data bank, it is stated as 'houses'. This Court in Line Properties Pvt Ltd V. Revenue Divisional Officer , Ernakulam [2025 KHC 1637] observed like this:

“6. Even otherwise, the fact that the property was described in the Data Bank as "reclaimed land", by itself indicate that, the authorities concerned, had applied their mind, conducted an enquiry while preparing the Data Bank and entered into a finding that the property is not a "paddy land" or a "wetland". Therefore, the entry of the said property is an erroneous entry as observed above, which itself is to be removed, without any further enquiry.”

6. In Koshy Philip (Dr.) V. Revenue Divisional O Adoor [2025 (2) KHC 74] , observed like this;

“8. Thus, Ext P4 is published after complying with all the said procedures and thus, the entry of the petitioner's property therein with a description as "dry land" would lead to an irresistible conclusion that, while adopting the said procedure, the competent authorities found the property of the petitioner as a property not coming within the definition of 'paddy land'. or "wetland". Therefore, the entry of the petitioner's property by describing it as 'dry land', itself was an unwanted entry, which is liable to be removed, in view of the fact that, the data - bank, was not intended to include the details of any other properties than "paddy land" or '"wetland" as defined under the Act. The view taken by this court is fortified by the observations made by this court in Salim C. K. v. State of Kerala and others (