A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

1. The appellants approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 – notice issued by the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), who is the agricultural officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kadamakkudy. The notice is issued to show cause why the land referred to in Ext.P4 should not be included in the data bank. The land in question is situated in Re.Sy.No.136/9-2, Old Sy.No.783/1 of Kadamakkudy Village.

2. The learned Single Judge did not interfere with the show cause notice, noting that it is only a notice, and directed the petitioners/appellants to raise their objection. Not satisfied with the direction as above, the appellants have come up with this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants points out that in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), the land is recorded as 'Purayidam', and therefore, the show cause notice is illegal, and the same was issued without jurisdiction. It is submitted that when the show cause notice itself is issued without jurisdiction, it has to be set aside.

4. When the matter came before us, on 06.11.2025, we passed the following order:

                  “The learned Government Pleader is directed to get instructions as to whether there is any correction in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) in regard to the nature of the land and how the entry was made in the BTR as 'Purayidam'.

                  2. There shall be a stay for two weeks. However, the appellants/petitioners shall not alter or undertake any construction without permission from this Court.”

5. Based on the above order, a report of the Village Officer, Kadamakkudy dated 01.12.2025 is placed before us, and the same reads thus:

                  “Kind attention is invited to the reference cited. On verification of village records the land mentioned (Resurvey No.136/1-3, 136/9-2) in the above referred WA – 2647/2025, denoted as 'Purayidam' in the resurvey records. But in the OLD BTR the classification of concerned land (Old Survey No.784/1,783/1) is denoted as 'Nilam'. Resurvey records are implemented in Kadamakudy village on 2001 onwards. Classification of land is changed during the implementation of resurvey records, which is done by the Survey and Land Records department.”

                  The report indicates that from 2001 onwards the land is classified as 'Purayidam' in the BTR.

6. Nobody has a case that the classification was erroneous and the land was described as 'Purayidam' in the BTR by any manipulation or by using any deceitful methods.

7. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Jasmin v. District Collector, Collectorate Thiruvananthapuram [2025 KHC OnLine 939] considered various Government Orders from 1965 onwards enabling the Revenue Authority to reclassify the land and took a view that the Revenue Authorities had the power much before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, came into force to correct BTR to reclassify the land. This Judgment has been approved by us in District Collector v. Thangal Kunju [2025 (5) KLT 515 ].

8. The Local Level Monitoring Committee or any other authority under Act 28 of 2008 cannot include any land classified as 'Purayidam' in the data bank unless the competent authority revisits the classification on any parameters regularised under law and reviews their earlier decision. There may be cases where, by the nature of the land, it continued to be paddy land or wetland, and by some manipulation or deceitful means it might have been included in the BTR as 'Purayidam'. Either way, when land is declared as 'Purayidam' in the BTR, unless that decision is revisited or reviewed, the land cannot be included in the data bank.

                  In the light of the above, the appellants succeed. We hold that Ext.P4 notice issued is without any jurisdiction, as it was without application of mind. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is quashed, and the appeal stands allowed.