J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri.Ravi Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt. Shylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner had filed an application in Form

5 under Rule 4D of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008, seeking deletion of the property in Sy.No.75/3E-10, having an extent of 4.5 Ares of Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam District. By the impugned order at Ext.P5, the aforementioned application was rejected, and the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. A perusal of the order at Ext.P5 shows that the aforementioned order has been issued without conducting an independent assessment and was solely based on the views of the Agricultural Officer. Insofar as the application of the petitioner was for removing the property from the data bank, contending that the property has been converted prior to the 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) ought to have obtained a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC). Admittedly, no such report was obtained.

4. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that Ext.P5 requires to be set aside.

Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting as