JUDGMENT : C.S.Dias, J. The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P8 order and direct the 1 st respondent to re-consider Ext.P7 application (Form 5) submitted 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 6.77 Ares of land comprised in Resurvey Nos.271/13 and 271/6 in Block No.012 of Kalayapuram Village, Kottarakara Taluk, Kollam District, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner’s property is a dry land and is situated on the MC Road highway. The respondents have erroneously classified the petitioner's property as “paddy land” and included it in the data bank. In the said background, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P7 application before the 1st respondent to remove his property from the data bank. However, the 1 st respondent, based on the report of the Agricultural Officer that the property is surrounded by paddy fields, has rejected the application by the impugned Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 order is erroneous, illegal and is passed without any application of mind. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. It is the petitioner’s case that, his property is a dry land and situated on the side of the MC Road. According to the petitioner, by Exts.P2 and P3 certificates issued by the respondents 3 and 4 in the year 2014, it is certified that his property is not fit for paddy cultivation. Subsequently, the petitioner had obtained Ext.P4 building permit, to construct a commercial building in the property, which order was confirmed by Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. Notwithstanding Exts.P2 and P3 certificates, the 1 st respondent has rejected Ext.P7 application. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner had obtained Ext.P4 building permit, to construct a commercial building in the property, which order was confirmed by Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. Notwithstanding Exts.P2 and P3 certificates, the 1 st respondent has rejected Ext.P7 application. 5. In a catena of judgments, this Court has held 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. Ext.P8 order undoubtedly reveals that, the 1 st respondent has rejected Ext.P7 application only for the reason that the petitioner’s property is surrounded by paddy fields based on the report of the LLMC. 7. In Rasheed C. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector [2025 KHC 1666], this Court has succinctly held that, a Form 5 application cannot be considered on the basis of the observation of the LLMC, since the procedure is not envisaged under the Act. The Rules only provide to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer, to ascertain the character of the applicant's land. In case the Revenue Divisional Officer has any doubt in his mind, he can also direct the Agricultural Officer to call for a scientific report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSERC) as contemplated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. 8. In the case at hand, as evident from Exts.P2 and P3 issued in the year 2014, it is certified that the petitioner’s property is unfit for paddy cultivation. The 1 st respondent has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature, lie or the character of the petitioner’s property as on the crucial date i.e., 12.8.2008, or whether the removal of the petitioner’s property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. The 1 st respondent also did not call for a report from KSREC, to ascertain the character of the petitioner’s property as in the year 2008. The 1 st respondent also did not call for a report from KSREC, to ascertain the character of the petitioner’s property as in the year 2008. It is without resorting to any of the above courses contemplated under the statute, the 1 st respondent passed the impugned order. I find that the entire decision making process leading to Ext.P8 order is vitiated and suffers from errors of law. Hence, I am convinced that Ext.P8 order is liable to be quashed and the 1 st respondent be directed to re-consider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, the principles laid down by this Court and the materials available on record. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i). Ext.P8 order is quashed. (ii). The petitioner would be at liberty to file an application before the 3rd 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 3 rd 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 1 st respondent. (iv). The 1 st respondent/authorised officer shall re-consider Ext.P7 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a report from the 3 rd respondent. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.