Judgment : 1. The petitioners have acquired about 11 acres and 61 cents of property under separate sale deeds. According to the petitioner though the present nature of property is seen as garden land and is not being used as a paddy field nor it is a wet land, still the petitioners were not granted permission to develop the said property as they intended to put up a Container Yard. Petitioners have submitted representations before the Revenue Authorities but ultimately they were told that the property is included in the Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee and therefore permission cannot be granted for putting up any construction in the said property. 2. Petitioners therefore sought for the following reliefs:- (i) declare that the properties belonging to the petitioners as per Exhibits P8 and P9 Reports of the Tahsildar and Town Planning Officer are barren land and residential zone. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 and 3 to dispose of Exhibits P6 and P7 representations submitted by the petitioners on 25.05.2012 and 22.06.2012 respectively, forthwith, (iii) permit the petitioners to convert the land mentioned in Exhibit P3 which do fall within residential zone and hence they can be used for Container Yard, infrastructures like Office building, Godown, Staff Quarters etc., 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 1 and2 producing Ext. R1(b) which are the particulars of the draftData Bank entries prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee in terms with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the Rules framed thereunder. 4. It is not a dispute that if this property is included in the Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, no person shall be entitled to put up any construction in the said property in order to convert the said land. The petitioners has a case that nature of property as on the date when the Act had come into force was neither a wet land nor a paddy land nor was it suitable for paddy cultivation and that the entries in the Data Bank are clearly erroneous as can be seen from Ext. P8 report of the Village Officer. The petitioners has a case that nature of property as on the date when the Act had come into force was neither a wet land nor a paddy land nor was it suitable for paddy cultivation and that the entries in the Data Bank are clearly erroneous as can be seen from Ext. P8 report of the Village Officer. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that since the Village Officer is a member of the Local Level Monitoring Committee necessarily the said report ought to have been considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committee to make entries in the same. But it is relevant to note that, what is now available with the Local Level Monitoring Committee is only a draft notification and necessarily changes can be made depending upon the actual state of affairs which existed as on the date when the Act had come into force. Necessarily, if the petitioners require urgent deletion of the property from the Data Bank particulars now available, the petitioners will have to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee. 5. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I do not think that this Court will be justified in passing any order in respect of the reliefs as sought for. However having regard to the nature of contentions raised, I am of the view that the relief prayed for can be moulded and the writ petition is disposed of as follows:- The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee of the Panchayath and submit necessary material to indicate that the property is not a paddy field or wet land as defined under the Act and the Local Level Monitoring Committee shall take appropriate decision in the matter after conducting necessary enquiry in terms of Rule 4(2) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules.