The authority to include land in the data bank solely resides with the Local Level Monitoring Committee, not the Revenue Divisional Officer.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P4.

b) to declare that the 2nd respondent has no power or authority to pass an order directing the agricultural officer to include the property in the data bank while considering a Form 6 application. c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 Form 6 application in the light of George Varghese v.

District Collector 2023(7)KHC 93 .

d) To declare that the subject property mentioned in Ext.P3 is not a paddy field as defined under section 2(XII) of the Act 28 of 2008.

e) dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.

f) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. “

(SIC)

2. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 order passed by the 2^nd respondent in a Form-6 application filed in accordance with Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 order will not stand in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in James Antony Alosious v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2025(4) KLT 139 ].

3. The Learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P4 is an appealable order.

4. After hearing both sides, I think this Writ Petition need not be retained here. The petitioner can be allowed to file an appeal against Ext.P4. This Court in James Antony Alosious case (supra) observed like this;

“4. The petitioner's land has not been included in the data bank as evident from Ext.P2. The Local Level Monitoring Committee, the authority to include a land in the data bank, while preparing the data bank consciously chose not to include the said land in the data bank. The counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent would reveal that the property was treated as a wetland essentially for the reason that the property is a low lying land with water logging. This Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association & Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam & Others[ 2020 (2) KLT 192 ], Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner [ 2022 (1) KLT 461 ] and in Krishnankutty Menon v. The District Collector, Kozhikode [ 2025 (1) KHC 647 ] has held that only for the reason that a land is a low lying land and there is water logging, it cannot be treated as a paddy in the data bank as is done in Ext.P4; especially when the Revenue Divisional Officer is the authority empowered as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to consider the application seeking removal of land from the data bank land or as a wet land. Further, if the Local Level Monitoring Committee finds that a particular land has been excluded from the data bank, they can include the same in the data bank after following the due procedures as provided in Rule 4(5) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Since the Local Level Monitoring Committee is the sole authority to include a property in the data bank, the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is not empowered to direct the LLMC to include a property in the data bank as is done in Ext.P4; especially when the Revenue Divisional Officer is the authority empowered as per the to consider the application seeking removal of land from the data bank.”

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property is not included in Ext.P2 Data Bank. The same also may be considered by the appellate authority.

In the light of the above principle, the appellate authority will consider the appeal within a time frame.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The petitioner is free to file an a