The Court upheld that properties with no recent paddy cultivation can be removed from the data bank as per established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 1.67, 0.37, and 0.67 ares of land in Resurvey No. 324/10/3/3 and 324/11/9/2, Block No. 36 of Aluva East Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District.

2. According to the petitioner, the afore property was converted sufficiently earlier to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , and there has been no cultivation in the afore property for more than 50 years. The petitioner also points out Ext.P1 data bank, wherein the property is described as converted land. The petitioner sought permission for converting the afore property, and by Ext.P5 order dated 21.7.2017 issued under the provisions of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order , permission was granted for utilizing the land for non-agricultural purposes

3. The petitioner also points out that, on the basis of Ext.P6 building permit, the petitioner has constructed a residential building on the aforesaid property. The petitioner sought removal of the afore property from the data bank by furnishing Ext.P5 and also sought a change in the status of the land as per the BTR by filing an application in Form-6. The complaint of the petitioner is to the effect that the Agricultural Officer, pursuant to Ext.P10, reported that the property cannot be treated as dry land. It is to challenge Ext.P10 that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition.

4. I have heard Smt. K.P. Santhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt. Silpa N.P., the learned Government Pleader.

5. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner’s property referred to above is required to be removed from the data bank. True, the petitioner has filed an application in Form-5, followed by another application in Form-6. But as already noticed, the petitioner had obtained Ext.P5 order under the KLU Order dated 21.7.2017 and, on the basis of the building permit, has also constructed a residential building on the property in question. Furthermore, the report of the KSREC at Ext.P4 also shows that, during 2008, the plot was observed under vegetation cover. The report does not highlight that there was paddy cultivation earlier, during 2008.

6. In view of the order obtained under the KLU Order, I am of the opinion that the property is required to be removed from the data bank, as has been found by this Court in Tahsildar v. Renjit George [ 2025 (1) KHC 271 ].

In such circumstances, I allow this writ petition, directing the 4^th respondent to remove the property of the petitioner referred to above from the data bank.

Sd/-