JUDGMENT : C.S.Dias, J. The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 2 nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P2 application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). 2. The petitioners are the owners in possession of 3.64 Ares of property in Survey No.341/320 (Re-Survey No.341/1J) of the Ramanattukara Village in Calicut District, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner’s property is a dry land. There are trees and other plantations in the property. The property is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the petitioners’ property as paddy land in the data bank. In the said circumstances, the petitioners had submitted Ext.P2 application to remove their property from the data bank. The 2 nd respondent, solely relying on a report of the Village Officer, has rejected Ext.P2 application by the impugned Ext.P4 order. The entire procedure followed by the 2 nd respondent is irregular and improper. Going by the scheme of the Act, the 2 nd respondent ought to have called for a report from the 5 th respondent and then, independently evaluated the nature, lie and character of the petitioners’ property and whether it is suitable for paddy cultivation. If the 2 nd respondent had any doubt regarding the character of the property, he ought to have called for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC), as contemplated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. In view of the material irregularity committed by the 2 nd respondent, Ext.P4 order is liable to be quashed. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The petitioners’ case is that, their property is a dry land. There are several trees and plantations in the said property. Ext.P1, land tax receipt shows that the petitioners’ property is ‘Nanja’. 5. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The petitioners’ case is that, their property is a dry land. There are several trees and plantations in the said property. Ext.P1, land tax receipt shows that the petitioners’ property is ‘Nanja’. 5. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of decisions that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation, as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer ( 2023(4) KHC 524 ), 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 )). 6. A reading of Ext.P4 order makes it abundantly clear that the 2 nd respondent has not independently evaluated the nature, lie and the character of the petitioners’ property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the petitioners’ property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. The 2 nd respondent has also not called for a report from the KSREC to ascertain the character of the petitioners’ property. Instead, it is solely relying on a report of the Village Officer, which is not contemplated under law, the 2 nd respondent has passed the impugned order. There is total non-application of mind in the entire decision making process. Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P4 order is liable to be quashed and the 2 nd respondent be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, the principles laid down by this Court, and all the materials available on record. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i). Ext.P4 order is quashed. (ii). The petitioner would be at liberty to file an application before the 5 th respondent, with a copy of this judgment, after depositing the requisite fee, to call for a report from the KSREC, to ascertain the nature, lie and character of the property; (iii). Ext.P4 order is quashed. (ii). The petitioner would be at liberty to file an application before the 5 th respondent, with a copy of this judgment, after depositing the requisite fee, to call for a report from the KSREC, to ascertain the nature, lie and character of the property; (iii). The 5 th respondent shall, immediately on receipt of the application, call for a report from the KSREC; and on receipt of the same, within four weeks, forward the same with his report to the 2 nd respondent. (iv). The 2 nd respondent/authorised officer shall reconsider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a report from the 5 th respondent. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.