1. The petitioner, along with his brothers, is stated to be in ownership of an extent of 82.25 cents in Re.Sy. No.54/8 in Block No.19 of Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, as per Ext.P1 sale deed. Tax with respect to the property is also being remitted by him, as evidenced by Ext.P2. The property, though described as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records, was actually a ‘Purayidam’, according to the petitioner. The petitioner states that the property in question was reclaimed more than five decades ago. The petitioner also states that coconut trees, etc., are available in the property in question, as evidenced by the photographs produced along with the writ petition.

2. However, the property in question was included in the data bank. In such circumstances, an application in Form-5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 was filed before the appropriate authority. Originally, this application was rejected by the order at Ext.P7. The said order found that even though coconut trees were seen planted in the property in question, the property was waterlogged and hence the application could not be allowed. This order was challenged by filing W.P.(C) No.20234 of 2022. By Ext.P8 judgment dated 03.02.2023, this Court extensively made reference to the KSREC report, which was available before the authority when it passed Ext.P7 order. The KSREC report is also produced along with this writ petition as Ext.P4.

3. This Court, pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment, after referring to the KSREC report and noticing the principles laid down in Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2021 (1) KLT 433) and in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022 (7) KHC 591), was of the opinion that the matter required reconsideration. Hence, the impugned order at Ext.P7 was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

4. The fresh order issued is the one at Ext.P9, which was produced only during the pendency of Contempt of Court Case No.777 of 2022. The order at Ext.P9 described the property as a wetland. When this was pointed out during the pendency of the contempt matter, the RDO issued a fresh order at Ext.P10, taking the stand that there is no evidence to prove that the property was converted prior to 2008. It is challenging Ext.P10 issued as above, that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition.

5. Heard Sri. P. Prijith, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt. Sylaja S.L., learned Government Pleader.

6. Taking note of the rival submissions, this Court, pursuant to an application at I.A. No.1 of 2026 filed by the petitioner, had deputed Sri. Gokul Nath, an Advocate of this Court, as a Commissioner for verifying and reporting the following aspects:

                  (1) Report about the nature and lie of property having an extent of 33.30 Ares (82.25 cents) in Re.Sy. No:54/8 in Block No.19 of Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk by virtue of Exhibit. P1 Sale deed No:2431 of 2001 dated 18-09-2001 of Thrippunithura Sub Registry Office.

                  (2) To report about the trees and other improvements in the property covered under Exhibit. P1 document.

                  (3) To report whether paddy cultivation is possible without changing the present nature and lie of the property using mechanised  instruments  or  other  mechanisms.

                  (4) Report about the adjacent properties and to verify their status.

                  (5) To report such other matters which may be pointed out by the petitioner or his counsel at the time of inspection.

7. Sri. Gokul Nath, the learned Advocate Commissioner, has filed a detailed report dated 20.03.2026. It has been categorically found by the learned Advocate Commissioner that paddy cultivation is apparently not possible without changing the present nature of the property using mechanised instruments or other mechanisms. Furthermore, the Commissioner has made extensive reference to the adjacent properties, recording that the properties on three sides have had no paddy cultivation at least since 1985. Furthermore, it is pointed out that on the north-western boundary, there is a house property of one Sri. Jerome, though the same also has waterlogging in certain seasons. Photographs in support of the above have also been produced along with the report.

8. An objection has also been filed by the 2nd respondent to the Commissioner's report, making reference to Exhibit R2(a) data bank of the Udayamperoor Grama Panchayat, as per which the property is a paddy land. However, with reference to the findings in the report of the Advocate Commissioner, I am of the opinion that the property requires to be removed from the data bank, since it has ultimately been found that the property is not suitable for paddy cultivation. This Court has, on more than one occasion, held that the nature of the property as on 2008 is required to be noticed while deciding an application in Form-5 filed under the provisions of the Act. Insofar as it is found by the Advocate Commissioner that there cannot be any paddy cultivation and that paddy cultivation last took place prior to 1985, I am of the opinion that the request made by the petitioner ought to have been allowed. This is all the more so in view of the principles laid down by this Court in Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2021 (1) KLT 433) and in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022 (7) KHC 591).

                  In such circumstances, this writ petition stands allowed, directing the first respondent herein to remove the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 sale deed from the data bank.