JUDGMENT : P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J. 1. The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. The first petitioner holds a land measuring 4.04 Ares in Resurvey No. 57/4/1 of Kuttoor Village. The second petitioner holds the adjoining land measuring 4.05 Ares in the very same survey number. The lands of the petitioners are shown in the revenue records as nilam. They are, however, not included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). In order to make use of the land for other purposes, the first petitioner preferred Ext.P3 application before the second respondent for permission under Clause 6(2) of the Land Utilization Order (Kerala). Similar application has been preferred by the second petitioner also before the second respondent. Ext.P4 is the application preferred by the second petitioner in this regard. Ext.P3 application has been rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P9 order. Similarly, Ext.P4 application has been rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P10 order. Exts.P9 and P10 orders have been challenged by the petitioners in appeal before the first respondent. In terms of Exts.P13 and P14 orders, the first respondent affirmed Exts.P9 and P10 orders. Exts.P9, P10, P13 and P14 are under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Ext.P3 application has been rejected by the second respondent holding that the land of the first petitioner is lying at about 2 meters below the road level and would be waterlogged during rainy season and that the Local Level Monitoring Committee under the Act has recommended to include the said land in the data bank prepared under the Act. The relevant portion of Ext.P9 order reads thus: Ext.P4 application has also been rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P10 order on the same ground. Exts.P13 and P14 orders, however, indicate that the first respondent has affirmed Exts.P9 and P10 orders having regard to the lie of the land and taking the view that satellite pictures of the lands show that the same remained as unconverted paddy land.” 4. The short question arises for consideration is as to whether the reasons stated in Exts.P9, P10, P13 and P14 orders are sufficient to justify the rejection of the application preferred by the petitioners for permission under Clause 6(2) of the Land Utilization Order. The short question arises for consideration is as to whether the reasons stated in Exts.P9, P10, P13 and P14 orders are sufficient to justify the rejection of the application preferred by the petitioners for permission under Clause 6(2) of the Land Utilization Order. 5. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules provides for the procedure for inclusion of a land as ‘paddy land’ in the data bank. The said Rule reads thus: 6. It is evident from the extracted rule that the statute did not provide for inclusion of all lands shown in the revenue records as paddy land in the data bank. On the other hand, the extracted rule indicates that only cultivable paddy lands as on the date of coming into force of the Act were liable to be included as paddy lands in the data bank. As noted, the lands of the petitioners are not included in the data bank prepared under the Act. In other words, it can be presumed that the lands were not found cultivable at the time when the Act came into force. There is no finding in the impugned orders that the lands involved in these matters are cultivable paddy lands now. On the other hand, the finding recorded in Exts.P9 and P10 orders that the lands are lying at about 2 meters below the road level and would be waterlogged during rainy season indicates that they are not cultivable paddy lands. Further, Ext.P12 sketch and Ext.P11 photographs would show that the lands of the petitioners are surrounded by converted paddy lands and there exists residential buildings also in such lands. The said documents also indicate that the lands are not cultivable paddy lands. Merely for the reason that the lands are lying low and are waterlogged, the same cannot be included as paddy lands in the data bank. If the lands cannot be included as paddy lands in the data bank, according to me, the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order ought to have granted the permission sought for by the petitioners. In the result, Exts.P9, P10, P13 and P14 orders are quashed. 7. The second respondent is directed to grant the permission sought for by the petitioners, within a period of six weeks.