JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and direct the 2 nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P5 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 58 Ares and 28 Sq.Meter of land comprised in Survey No.245/6 of Karumaloor Village, Paravoor Taluk, Ernakulam District covered by Ext.P1 title deed and Ext.P2 basic tax receipt. The petitioner’s property is a dry land and is not suitable for any agricultural operation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'nilam' and included it in the data bank. In the said background, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application to remove the property from the data bank. The 2 nd respondent, solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer/6 th respondent and the recommendations of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (in short ‘LLMC’) has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P5 application by Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The petitioner’s specific is case that, his property is a converted land much prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . The petitioner’s property is not suitable for paddy cultivation. There are coconut trees aged above 25 years and there are buildings in the entire locality. There is also no water body near the petitioner’s property. However, the 2 nd respondent has, based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, who has stated that the property is lying as nilam and water logged and the report of the LLMC, which has recommended not to remove the property from the data bank, passed Ext.P6 order. 5. There is also no water body near the petitioner’s property. However, the 2 nd respondent has, based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, who has stated that the property is lying as nilam and water logged and the report of the LLMC, which has recommended not to remove the property from the data bank, passed Ext.P6 order. 5. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, 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. 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 observations of the LLMC, since the said procedure is not contemplated under the Rules. The Rules only provide to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer or getting a scientific report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC). 7. A reading of Ext.P6 order substantiates that the 2 nd respondent has not directly inspected the petitioner’s property or called for the satellite images as envisaged under rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the 2 nd respondent, by solely relying on the recommendations made by the Agricultural Officer and the LLMC, has rejected Ext.P5 application. I find that there has been total non-application of mind in passing the impugned order. Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P6 order is liable to be quashed and the 2 nd respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles laid down in the aforecited decisions and the materials available on record. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i) Ext.P6 order is quashed. (ii) The 2 nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application, in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i) Ext.P6 order is quashed. (ii) The 2 nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application, in accordance with law. It would be upto to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for satellite images as per the procedure provided under rule 4(4f) of the Rules at the expense of the petitioner. (iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite image, he shall consider Ext.P5 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of the satellite images. In case, he decides to directly inspect the property, he shall dispose of the application within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 9. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.