1. The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

                  "i. call for records leading to Ext.P16 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P16.

                  ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to exclude petitioner’s property from data bank prepared under Sec. 5(4) of Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, within such time as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

                  iii. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner. "

                  [SIC]

2. Petitioner is an advocate practising in this Court, and his submission is that he is approaching this Court for the 6th time for getting 7.69 Ares of land (19 cents) situated in Guruvayur village, abutting the National Highway and situated in the commercial area as per the town planning notification to be removed from the data bank prepared under Sec. 5(4) of Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, Act 2008).

3. Petitioner along with his two brothers are the owners of 7.69 ares of land in Sy. No. 209/3C-1 of Guruvayur village in Chavakkad Taluk. The aforesaid property is situated near the Municipal bus stand, Chavakkad. Ext.P5 is the basic tax receipt issued by the Village Officer, Guruvayur. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property is included as commercial zone as per the master plan of Chavakkad Municipality and Ext.P6 is the master plan of Chavakkad Town Proposed Land Use Map – 2031. On the western side of the petitioner’s property is the Chavakkad bypass. On the southern and northern boundaries of the petitioner’s property are garden lands where buildings are in existence, is the submission. On the eastern side of the petitioner’s property is the land, which is a barren land. It is submitted that, in the draft data bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee petitioner’s land situated in Sy. No. 209/3C-1 is mentioned as converted land 15 years back from the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act. Ext.P7 is the relevant pages of the draft data bank issued by the Agricultural Officer, Chavakkad, showing inclusion of the petitioner’s property. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner’s land is not paddy land on the date of commencement of the Act, 2008.

4. Since the petitioner’s property was included in the draft data bank, though as a converted land 15 years back, the petitioner filed an application for removing petitioner’s property from the data bank. The Local Level Monitoring Committee had conducted a site inspection of the property, as evident by Ext.P8 inspection report of the Agricultural field Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Chavakkad. It is submitted that, in Ext.P8, it was mentioned that on the western side of the petitioner’s property is the bypass road and on the other sides are reclaimed lands. On the eastern side lies land containing 15-year-old coconut trees and a ‘thodu’. Without any legal basis, in Ext.P8, the land was recommended to be included as wetland, is the submission. Since the petitioner’s land was included as wetland in the data bank, the petitioner had filed an application for removing the petitioner’s land from the data bank, as evident by Ext.P9. Ext.P9 application was not considered, and the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C). No. 30902 of 2016, and this Court, as per the judgement has directed the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P9. Thereafter, Ext.P9 was considered by the 2nd respondent and in the meeting dated 12.06.2019 of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, it was observed that the land is lying as not reclaimed paddy land, and hence the land is to be retained as paddy land. Ext.P10 is the decision of the Local Level monitoring Committee. Challenging Ext.P10, the petitioner has filed WP(C).17586 of 2020 and as per the judgment dated 17.09.2020 in the above writ petition, this Court directed the respondent to pass orders afresh. As directed by this Court, the 2nd respondent on 19.04.2021, convened a meeting of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and decided that the land was not converted prior to 2008, and if conversion is allowed, it will result in flooding of neighbouring land, and hence it was decided to include the petitioner’s land in the data bank as paddy land. It is also submitted that, respondents have no case that, it is a wetland. Ext.P11 is the decision of the Local level Monitoring Committee. As can be seen from Ext.P3, it is clearly mentioned in answer No.5 that there is no irrigation facility for conducting paddy cultivation in the land, and also, in answer to question No.8, even in the entire municipal area, there is no irrigation facility for conducting paddy cultivation, is the submission. The petitioner had challenged Ext.P7 by filing WP(C). No. 10088 of 2022 and also sought a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application in accordance with Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector Ernakulam and Other [2021 (1) KHC 540]. This Court passed a judgment directing the respondents that before deciding the matter of inclusion of the petitioner’s land in the data bank, 1st respondent has to inspect the petitioner’s property and should give an opportunity of hearing the petitioner. It was also directed that, if the petitioner wants the KSREC report, the 1st respondent will get the same. Exhibit P12 is the judgment. Petitioner requested the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue a copy of the KSREC report, and Ext.P13 is the letter dated 04.08.2022 to the Revenue Divisional Officer. When no orders were passed as directed, in Ext.P13, a contempt petition was also filed, and this Court issued notice to the 1st respondent and ordered personal appearance. Subsequently, without showing any reason, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P14 order is the submission. In Ext.P14, the 1st respondent has mentioned that the petitioner’s property is lying on the eastern side of Chavakkad bypass road and on the western side of the petitioner’s property is the above-mentioned bypass road. On the southern side is converted land. It is also mentioned that the petitioner’s property is situated about six feet below the bypass road, which is factually wrong is the submission. The land is situated only two feet below the bypass road, is the submission. In Ext.P14, the Revenue Divisional Officer mentioned that since the land is lying six feet below the bypass road, if any construction is to be made, the land should be filled up with ordinary earth, and if such activity is conducted, there will be water clogging in the nearby area, is the finding, which is disputed by the petitioner. It is submitted that, as per Ext.P14, the Revenue Divisional Officer has referred to the reply obtained under the Right to Information Act (for short RTI Act) that the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation and that the land is included in the master plan as commercial property. The Revenue Divisional Officer in Ext.P14 has referred to the KSREC report, a copy of which has not been issued to the petitioner, in spite of Ext.P13 request and the directions in Ext.P12 judgment is the submission. Even the KSREC report says that the land is lying as scattered vegetation/plantation/trees towards the south border in 2008 is the submission. In Ext.P14, the Revenue Divisional Officer entered the finding that the petitioner’s land is a wetland is the submission. Aggrieved by Ext.P14, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing WP(C). No. 38923 of 2023, and this Court has set aside Ext.P14 and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the application afresh. Ext.P15 is the judgment. Pursuant to Ext.P15, the 1st respondent passed a revised order as evident by Ext P16. In Ext.P16, the 1st respondent takes a stand that the petitioner’s land is to be retained as paddy land in the data bank. Aggrieved by Ext.P16, this Writ Petition is filed.

5. Heard Senior Counsel Adv.Renjith Thampan, assisted by Adv.KrishnaKumar and the Government Pleader.

6. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the property and to submit a report about the details mentioned in the writ petition. The Commissioner submitted a detailed report. It will be better to extract the relevant portions of the Commissioner's report:

                  3. This Honourable Court in the above said order dated directed me to ascertain and report a few points which is answered as follows:-

                  i. Whether the petitioner’s property lies abutting the Chavakkad Bypass:-On inspection it is seen that the petitioner’s property lies on the eastern side of the Chavakkad Bypass ( Calicut to Ernakulam). A drainage channel having approximately 3 feet width runs in between the western boundary of the petitioner’s property and the Chavakkad Bypass. Therefore, though the property lies abutting the alignment of the Bypass, it does not directly touch the tarred portion of the road due to the intervening drainage channel.

                  ii. Whether the properties lying to the north and south of the petitioner’s property are filled-up lands:- It is seen that both the northern and southern adjacent properties are filled-up lands. The level of both the adjacent properties is substantially higher than that of the petitioner’s land. The southern property contains old coconut trees and a small old building constructed on a raised portion. Clear signs of levelling and filling are visible on both sides.

                  iii. Whether the petitioner’s 19 cents of land can be profitably cultivated with paddy and whether it is convenient to do so:- On inspection it is seen that the land is waterlogged and contains stagnant water at several portions. Growth of common water hyacinth is seen in the middle portion of the land. No bunds, field preparation, irrigation inlets, or paddy cultivation activity are seen. Local residents stated that no cultivation has been carried out in the land for several years. In the present physical condition of the land, profitable paddy cultivation does not appear to be convenient without substantial land development, levelling, and drainage works.

                  iv. Whether there is any facility for irrigating the petitioner’s property for paddy cultivation:- It is seen that no irrigation facilities such as pump sets, motors, wells, borewells, ponds, irrigation canals, or water control structures are available in the petitioner’s property. No regulated inlet or outlet for irrigation water is seen in the property.

                  v. Whether there is any thodu or water channel lying in or adjoining the petitioner’s property and whether the same is functional:- It is seen that there is no natural thodu or water channel within the petitioner’s property. However, a manmade drainage channel runs along the western boundary of the petitioner’s property, separating it from the Chavakkad Bypass. At the time of inspection, the said drainage channel was found to be broken at certain portions, as a result of which water was seen flowing into the petitioner’s property. The drainage channel was substantially covered with common water hyacinth, indicating poor maintenance and absence of continuous water flow. The said drainage channel is therefore found to be only partially functional as a stormwater outlet.

                  vi. As directed by this Honourable Court, a rough sketch showing the petitioner’s property, the Chavakkad Bypass, and the intervening drainage channel has been prepared and a true copy of the rough sketch prepared is produced herewith and maybe marked as Exhibit C3.

                  4. It is further observed that the petitioner’s land lies at a visibly lower level than the adjacent filled-up properties on the north and south sides, which appears to contribute to the stagnation of water within the property. The land exhibits clear wetland characteristics such as standing water, low elevation, poor natural drainage, and growth of aquatic vegetation."

7. It is to be noted here that, the respondents have no case that, it is a wetland and the property is situated in the heart of Chavakkad town.

8. This Writ Petition was heard in detail earlier, and this court suggested that, without a report from the Advocate Commissioner, it would be difficult to decide the matter. Therefore, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed, and the above report was submitted. The Senior Counsel also takes me through the running page 64 of the Writ Petition, which is part of Ext.P16. It is submitted that the Sub Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer inspected the property, and the following findings were made:

                  " 1. The petitioner's land is part of large extent of fallow land.

                  2. The petitioner's land is fallow and is in unfilled condition, with scattered vegetation including a tree.

                  3. The land is water-logged in nature, typical of lands used for paddy - cultivation.

                  4. The Conversion of the petitioner's land can have a harmful impact especially due to water-logging in the entire area, therefore it is best utilised for the purpose of paddy cultivation.

                  5. The Village Officer Guruvayur reports that the applied land is a part of ambalathu padashekaram, which has around 10 hecares of land spread across Guruvayoor-Orunanayoor (Marked as Annexure 3)."

9. From the above report also it is clear that, the conclusion after inspection is that, the property can be used for paddy cultivation. Admittedly, there is no irrigation facility for paddy cultivation in this property now. This Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83], observed that the Form-5 application cannot be rejected without a finding that it is feasible and viable to cultivate the land with paddy in the land. It will be better to extract paragraph No.23 of the above judgment:

                  “ 23. In the case of lands having any extent, the factor whether there are proper irrigation facilities making the land suitable for paddy cultivation would be important. Even if the land is of a comparatively larger extent, if there are no irrigation and other requisite facilities, it cannot be said that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation, merely because it was once cultivated with paddy and it is described as paddy land in revenue records.”

10. In Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector Ernakulam and Other [2021 (1) KHC 540], this Court observed like this:

                  “10. What are the parameters to treat a land as a paddy land as per the enactment is the sole question to be considered in the writ petition. On going through the definition of the paddy land, it is to be assumed that the power of LLMC is to include and exclude the land on being satisfied that the land is suitable or cultivable with paddy. In the modern era, paddy can be cultivated even on the top of concrete structure. Whether it is cultivable or non - cultivable in the context has to be understood with the natural features of the land. If natural features of the land is not fit for such cultivation, certainly such land has to be excluded from the data bank. In the judgment of this Court in Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai and Others v. State of Kerala and Others (2014 (1) KHC 685 : 2014 (1) KLT 774) it was held as follows:

                  "An authority, which has been conferred with the functions of preparing a Data Bank with the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland, within its area of jurisdiction, with the aid of modern technology and institutions of Science and Technology, under sub-cl. (i) of sub-section (4) of S.5, could, at any time, look into the ground realities and decide upon the suitability for prospective cultivation of such lands. The inclusion is made on the basis of satellite pictures and Revenue records as also maps prepared by the various institutions of the State. After such inclusion, looking at the ground realities emphasised by the binding precedents of this Court, if the preservation of lands as such, is found to be impracticable, the authority could delete such lands from the Data Bank."

11. In the light of the above dictum laid down in Aparna Sasi and Joy's cases (supra) and also in the light of the specific finding of the Advocate Commissioner, which is extracted above, it is clear that, the paddy cultivation is not practical in this property. Moreover, the property is situated in the heart of Chavakkad town, which is one of the busy towns in Kerala. All the adjacent properties are developed. The finding of the commissioner shows that there is no proper irrigation facilities making this land suitable for paddy cultivation. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P16 is to be set aside and Form-5 application is to be allowed.

                  Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

                  1. Ext.P16 is set aside.

                  2. The 1st respondent/Authorised Officer is directed to pass a consequential order in Ext.P9 Form-5 application in the light of the observations made in this judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.