JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and direct the 2 nd 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 0.1103 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 418/32 in Block No. 16 of Kuzhalmannam-1 Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad District, covered by Ext. P1 title deeds and Ext. P2 possession certificate. The petitioner’s property is a dry land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the petitioner’s property as paddy land and included it in the data bank. The petitioner’s predecessor in interest had filed a Form-5 application under Rule 4(d) of the Rules to remove the property from the data bank. By Ext. P6 order, the second respondent had rejected the said application on the ground that there is no material to prove that the property was converted prior to 2008 and removal of the property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. Nonetheless, it is observed that the property is presently a ‘fallow land’. After purchasing the property, the petitioner without knowing the passing of Ext. P6 order, submitted Ext.P7. The said application was returned to the petitioner on the ground that Ext. P6 order has already been passed. Ext. P6 is passed without any application of mind. Therefore, Ext. P6 order may be quashed and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, there is a specific finding in Ext. P6 order that the petitioner’s property is fit for paddy cultivation. Therefore, there is no error in Ext. P6 order. 5. The petitioner’s case is that, his property was converted long prior to the commencement of the Act in 2008. The second respondent has passed Ext. P6 order without following the procedure envisaged under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act' for short) and the Rules framed thereunder. Hence, Ext. P6 order is liable to be quashed. 6. The second respondent has passed Ext. P6 order without following the procedure envisaged under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act' for short) and the Rules framed thereunder. Hence, Ext. P6 order is liable to be quashed. 6. In a plethora of judicial precedents, 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 . 7. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others , 2020 (2) KHC 94 , a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and gets waterlogged during the rainy season or otherwise, due to the low-lying nature of the property, the property cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. 8. Ext.P6 order substantiates that the second respondent has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the petitioner’s property as on the crucial date, i.e. 12.08.2008; he has also not directly inspected the property or called for satellite images from the 9th respondent as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Therefore, I hold that there has been total non-application of the mind in passing Ext.P6 order. Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P6 order is liable to be quashed and the second respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i) Ext.P6 order is quashed. (ii) The second respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext. P7 application, in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i) Ext.P6 order is quashed. (ii) The second respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext. P7 application, in accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for satellite images as per the procedure provided under Rule 4(4f) at the expense of the petitioner. (iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P7 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of the receipt of the satellite images. In case the authorised officer desires to directly inspect the property, he shall dispose of the Ext. P7 within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 10. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.