JUDGMENT : The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and allow Ext.P3 application (Form 5) submitted by the petitioner under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). 2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.86 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.155/7 in Mathuthala Village, Pattambi Taluk, Palakkad District, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The said property is converted land. However, the property has been erroneously classified as ‘Nilam’ in the data bank. In the said circumstances, the petitioner had filed Ext.P3 application to remove the property from the data bank. The petitioner has also received a copy of Ext.P4 report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC), which clearly shows that the petitioner’s property is a fallow land with scattered vegetation and trees. Since, the 2 nd respondent did not take a decision in the matter, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.12044/2024 before this Court, which was allowed by Ext.P5 judgment directing the 2 nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 application after calling for a report from the Agricultural Officer and adverting to Ext.P4 report. However, the 2 nd respondent, without calling for a report from the Agricultural Officer or looking into Ext.P4 report, has relied on a report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and erroneously passed Ext.P6 order, which is a non-speaking and cryptic order. Ext.P6 is illegal and arbitrary, and liable to be quashed. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The 1 st respondent has filed a statement, inter alia, stating that the petitioner’s property is classified as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records and is included in the data bank. The Agricultural Officer has reported that the land has not been converted prior to 2008. Therefore, the land cannot be excluded from the data bank. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 5. The petitioner’s case is that, her property is a converted land. As per Ext.P4 report, the property is classified as a fallow land. Even though, in Ext.P5 judgment this Court had directed the 2 nd respondent to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer, the 2 nd respondent has only relied on the report of the LLMC. Therefore, Ext.P6 is liable to be quashed. 6. As per Ext.P4 report, the property is classified as a fallow land. Even though, in Ext.P5 judgment this Court had directed the 2 nd respondent to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer, the 2 nd respondent has only relied on the report of the LLMC. Therefore, Ext.P6 is liable to be quashed. 6. It is trite law that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, as available on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, is to be ascertained by the Revenue before taking a decision to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court in Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [ 2023 (2) KLT 386 ] and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others [ 2021 (1) KLT 433 ]. 7. On a reading of Ext.P5 order, it is discernible that the 2 nd respondent has only relied on the report of the LLMC. 8. It is well settled in Rasheed C. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector [2025 KHC Online 1666], that LLMC has no role in the consideration of a Form-5 application. 9. Even though in Ext.P4 judgment this Court had specifically directed the 2 nd respondent to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer and look into Ext.P4 KSREC report, there is no whisper in the impugned order regarding the report of the Agricultural Officer or Ext.P4 report. Therefore, I hold that Ext.P6 order is passed without application of mind or any independent finding regarding the nature, lie or character of the petitioner's property as on the crucial date, that is 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the petitioner’s property from the data bank would adversely effect the paddy cultivation. Hence, the entire decision making process is vitiated and bad in law. Thus , I am convinced that Ext.P6 order is liable to be quashed and the 2 nd respondent/ Authorized Officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, the principles laid down in the decisions mentioned above and after adverting to all the materials available on record. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i). Ext.P6 order is quashed. (ii). In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i). Ext.P6 order is quashed. (ii). The 2 nd respondent/Authorized Officer shall reconsider Ext.P3 application, after adverting to the report of the 4 th respondent/Agricultural Officer, Ext.P4 KSREC report and the law laid down by this Court in the aforecited decisions, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.