JUDGMENT : The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order whereby the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. It is averred that the petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of 22 Ares and 42 Sq.Mtr of land in Survey No.99/3 of Karinkunnam Village. It is further contended that the property is having various coconut trees and also jackfruit tree and the coconut plantation was effected prior to the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2008). Originally the property was not included in the data bank as evident from Ext.P2, but later by Ext.P3 the property was included. An application was submitted before the Local Level Monitoring Committee to remove the property from the data bank which was rejected as per Ext.P4 minutes. Challenging Ext.P4 petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.31879 of 2019, which was disposed of as per Ext.P6, setting aside Ext.P4 and directing the committee to reconsider the matter. The matter was again reconsidered and by Ext.P7 the application has been rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while setting aside Ext.P4 the Court has taken into consideration the KSRSEC report which revealed that the plot observed under fallow land in the imageries of the year 2007 and the same trend of land use practice was continued in the imageries of the year 2008 and from the imageries of the year 2016-2018 it is observed that the property is under thick mixed vegetation/plantation towards the northern part. Based on the KSRSEC report and also the definition of 'paddy land' under Section 2(xii) of the Act, 2008 the court observed that only a fallow land which is capable of being put to cultivation, will come within the definition of Paddy land and the court found that by taking Ext.P4 decision, the LLMC has not found that the property which has been left fallow, is capable of being put to cultivation in future. It is on the said observation and finding that Ext.P6 judgment was passed setting aside Ext.P4. Petitioner would further contend that in Ext.P7 also there is no finding as to whether the property which was left fallow was suitable or fit for paddy cultivation. 3. It is on the said observation and finding that Ext.P6 judgment was passed setting aside Ext.P4. Petitioner would further contend that in Ext.P7 also there is no finding as to whether the property which was left fallow was suitable or fit for paddy cultivation. 3. A statement is filed by the 1st respondent wherein it is contended that the petitioner himself submitted an application under Form No.1 before the Local Level Monitoring Committee seeking permission to construct a house in the property and the same was allowed by the LLMC and an extent of 10 cents was converted by using this permission granted as per Ext.R1(a) order. It is a contention of the learned Government Pleader that since the petitioner himself has filed an application under Form-1 admitting that the property is paddy land, the petitioner thereafter cannot dispute the nature of the land and this aspect has been suppressed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. 5. As stated earlier Ext.P4 order was interfered by this Court on entering a finding that in Ext.P4 decision of the LLMC there is nothing to show that the Committee has satisfied themselves that though the property has been left fallow, it is capable of being put to cultivation in future. This Court in Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector 2021 (1) KLT 433 has held that if natural features of the land is not fit for such cultivation, certainly such land has to be excluded from the data bank and further held that it is only the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. The said position was reiterated by this Court in Niyas v. District Collector 2023 (2) KLT 411 6. Another contention raised by the 1st respondent is that the petitioner has submitted an application under Form No.1 that is for conversion of the paddy land for the purpose of construction of a residential house and the same was allowed and thereafter the petitioner cannot contend that the property is not a paddy land. Another contention raised by the 1st respondent is that the petitioner has submitted an application under Form No.1 that is for conversion of the paddy land for the purpose of construction of a residential house and the same was allowed and thereafter the petitioner cannot contend that the property is not a paddy land. Similar issue was considered by this Court in Muhammed Unais v. State of Kerala 2025 KHC OnLine 1638 and held that the question to be considered in an application submitted in Form-5 is whether the property in question, was a reclaimed or having the characteristic of a paddy land prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act. It was further held in the judgment that filing of an application invoking Section 9(1) seeking reclamation of Paddy Land Act for construction of a residential building will not disentitle a person to submit an application in Form No.5, if he is able to demonstrate that the property stood reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Act,2008 and there is no legal prohibition which stands in the way of the party in submitting an application in Form 5 seeking the removal of the property from the data bank. Therefore, the said contention of the 1 st respondent cannot be accepted. 7. Admittedly, going by the KSRSEC report the property is observed as fallow land in the year 2007. As has been held by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment only for the reason that the property was observed under fallow land will not bring it within the definition of Paddy Land and to bring the property under the definition of Paddy Land under Section 2(xii) it should be a fallow land which is capable of being put to cultivation. It is settled position of law that the nature of land as on date on coming into force of the Act 2008 is what is relevant for consideration of an application under Form-5. Inspite of specific finding in Ext.P6 judgment, the application has been rejected again as per Ext.P7 order stating that the property which has been left fallow will not come within the definition of Paddy Land. None of the parameters directed to be taking into consideration in Ext.P6 judgment was considered while issuing Ext.P7 order. 8. Inspite of specific finding in Ext.P6 judgment, the application has been rejected again as per Ext.P7 order stating that the property which has been left fallow will not come within the definition of Paddy Land. None of the parameters directed to be taking into consideration in Ext.P6 judgment was considered while issuing Ext.P7 order. 8. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 1 st respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5 and pass appropriate orders thereon without any delay, at any rate, within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The above writ petition is disposed of accordingly.