JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is owner of 19.80 Ares of land in Survey No.231/8 of Kolazhy Village in Thrissur District, is before this Court with a prayer to quash Ext.P6 to the extent it rejects Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner for the reason of existence of Ext.P3 order of the District Collector. 2. The petitioner states that his land was described as paddy land in the Revenue records and was included in Data Bank. The petitioner submitted application for removal of the land from Data Bank. The application submitted by the petitioner stands rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P6 order dated 24.08.2021. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order. 3. The petitioner states that his land was admittedly in the nature of garden land. It is evident even from the statements made in Ext.P6 order. However, the application of the petitioner was rejected primarily on the ground that there was a restoration proceedings under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and against the order therein, a Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner, which is still pending with the 1st respondent. 4. The counsel for the petitioner argued that Ext.P2 is a statutory application and therefore the same will have to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, irrespective of whether any proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, 2008 is pending or not. Any action under Section 13 can be taken only after the Data Bank has been notified in the Gazette. Ext.P3 order was issued without relying on a Data Bank duly notified, contended the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The petitioner had earlier attempted to reclaim the land in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Therefore, proceedings were taken for illegal restoration/conversion of paddy land. The petitioner has filed Form-5 application only to escape from the proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the Act, 2008, contended the Government Pleader. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, urged the Government Pleader. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 7. The petitioner has filed Form-5 application only to escape from the proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the Act, 2008, contended the Government Pleader. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, urged the Government Pleader. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 Form-5 application seeking to remove his land from Data Bank. Ext.P2 was filed on 30.03.2021. The respondents would submit that there was already a proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, 2008 against the owner of the land for illegal conversion by filling up of paddy land. 8. This Court has considered an identical issue in W.P.(C) No.28276 of 2021. After considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that the mere pendency of Section 13 proceedings or a revision proceedings based on Section 13 order cannot be a ground not to entertain an application invoking Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Ext.P6 order therefore cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 9. In the circumstances, Ext.P6 order is set aside. The 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, without regard to pendency of any Section 13 proceedings or revision proceedings arising therefrom. The writ petition is disposed of as above.