1. The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 12.53 Ares of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.77/8-2-2,77/8-2-3 in Block No.011 of Kureekad Village in Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District. The grievance of the petitioner is that, even though the properties of the petitioner were reclaimed prior to the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the same has been included in the Data Bank as 'Nilam'. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted application before the 1st respondent LLMC for removing the same from the Data Bank which ultimately culminated in Ext.P7 order. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging the said order.

2. A statement has been submitted by the 2nd respondent, in response of the averments contained in the writ petition. The averments in paragraph of 3 and 4 are as follows: -

3. It is submitted that the applicant has submitted an application on 25.08.2017 before the LLMC for correction in data bank. The LLMC has issued a proceedings as per Order No.1/2024-25 dated 31.01.2024 of Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Chottanikkara by rejecting the Petitioner's prayer to exclude from data bank. Then the petitioner has not produced any document to prove that the land has been converted prior to 2008. After that as per the Hon'ble Court's direction again the plot was jointly inspected by Village Officer and Agricultural Officer and the report was given. At this time of inspection, the applicant submitted a document of Village Officer of the year 2009 showing that the land was already converted prior to 2008.

4. Based on this report and with the local enquiry of present Village officer came to the conclusion that the property was converted and no water logged area in the surroundings was seen. There is no paddy land or paddy cultivation in the adjoining lands. The LLMC has not taken any fresh decision after Its decision on 31.01.2024.

5. (4.) Heard Sri. P. K. Soyuz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

6. (5.) The only question that arises for consideration is whether, the Ext.P7 order is legally sustainable or not. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the Ext.P7 order was passed without considering relevant aspects and without any application of mind. According to the petitioner, the property stands reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the adjoining properties of the petitioner, were already removed from the Data Bank as evidenced by Exts.P10 to P12 orders passed by the authorities concerned including the 1st respondent herein. Besides, Ext.P6 report of KSRSEC is also in favour of the petitioner. However, Ext.P7 order was passed without taking note of the any of the aforesaid aspects. Therefore, it requires reconsideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the observatons made by this court in Niyas v. District Collector, Palakkad reported in 2023 (6) KLT 118.

7. (6.) After considering all the relevant aspects, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. This is particularly because, even in the statement submitted by the 2nd respondent, it is discernible that, there are documents indicating that the property of the petitioner was reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Besides, it is also averred that the Village Officer, after conducting a local enquiry, reported that there is no water logging in the surroundings. There is no paddy land or paddy cultivation adjoining land as well. Apart from the above, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P10 to P12 orders, in which Ext.P10 was passed by the 1st respondent itself also having some relevance as to the same is also in tune with the averments in the statement of the 2nd re