JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. 1. The above writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 order issued by the 1 st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. It is averred that the petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of property having an extent of 18.06 Ares in Sy.No.605/1-1 of Edathua Village. The property was converted to a dry land almost about 30 years back, ie., even before the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner's land is also not included in the data bank as evident from Ext.P2 certificate. But the property is classified as 'Nilam' in the basic tax register. When the petitioner attempted to fill up the pond in the said property, a stop memo was issued by the Village Officer. Later the 1 st respondent issued Ext.P4 order invoking the power under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 directing the petitioner to restore the land to its original state and further directing the 2 nd respondent to include the land in the data bank. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned Government Pleader has filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the property in question is a wet land and when the same was attempted to be reclaimed, the stop memo was issued. It is also stated that the land of the petitioner is a low lying land and is waterlogged and the same was mistakenly exempted from the data bank and therefore, after hearing the petitioner, a direction was issued by the 1 st respondent to the Agricultural Officer to include the said land in the data bank, with a further direction to restore the land to its original position. 4. The petitioner's land has not been included in the data bank as evident from Ext.P2. The Local Level Monitoring Committee, the authority to include a land in the data bank, while preparing the data bank consciously chose not to include the said land in the data bank. The counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent would reveal that the property was treated as a wetland essentially for the reason that the property is a low lying land with water logging. The counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent would reveal that the property was treated as a wetland essentially for the reason that the property is a low lying land with water logging. This Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association & Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam & Others, 2020 (2) KLT 192 , Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, 2022 (1) KLT 461 and Krishnankutty Menon v. The District Collector, Kozhikode, 2025 (1) KHC 647 has held that only for the reason that a land is a low lying land and there is water logging, it cannot be treated as a paddy land or as a wet land. Further, if the Local Level Monitoring Committee finds that a particular land has been excluded from the data bank, they can include the same in the data bank after following the due procedures as provided in Rule 4(5) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Since the Local Level Monitoring Committee is the sole authority to include a property in the data bank, the 1 st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is not empowered to direct the LLMC to include a property in the data bank as is done in Ext.P4; especially when the Revenue Divisional Officer is the authority empowered as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to consider the application seeking removal of land from the data bank. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the above writ petition is disposed of as follows: 1. Ext.P4 is set aside 2. The setting aside of Ext.P4 will not stand in the way of the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider in accordance with law whether the property should be included in the data bank, with notice to the petitioner.