JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. The petitioners, eight in numbers, have approached this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of the applications submitted by them in Form 5 of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘Paddy Land Rules) for removing the properties of the petitioners from the data bank prepared under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Paddy Land Act’). Exhibits P39 and P40 are the orders impugned in this writ petition. The said orders are passed after a series of litigations. 2. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the husband and wife, the 3 rd and 6 th petitioners are the sons of the 4 th respondent who is the brother of the 1 st petitioner. 5 th petitioner is the wife of 4 th petitioner. Petitioners 7 and 8 are the wife and daughter of the another brother of the 1 st petitioner. According to the petitioners, all of them were residing together in an old residential house at Thoppumpady, Ernakulam, as a joint family. Later, as they decided to have separate residence on their own, they have purchased the properties situated in Rameswaram Village as per Ext.P3 to P10 sale deed. 3. According to the petitioners before purchasing the said properties, they verified the land records and found that, as per the land register maintained at Krishi Bhavan, Vyttila, those properties are described as (till now lying as purayidom). Exhibit P2 is the copy of the relevant page of the land register. In the data bank published under the provisions of Paddy Land Act also, the entry of this property is described as Exhibit P2 is the data bank published in this regard. 4. However, as the property was described as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records, the petitioners submitted Form 6 application before the 1 st respondent under section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, seeking conversion of the properties in the revenue records. However, the 1 st respondent refused to accept the said applications on the ground that, as the properties are referred to in the data bank, unless an application in Form 5 is filed and properties are removed from the data bank, the application in Form 6, cannot be considered. However, the 1 st respondent refused to accept the said applications on the ground that, as the properties are referred to in the data bank, unless an application in Form 5 is filed and properties are removed from the data bank, the application in Form 6, cannot be considered. This compelled the petitioners 1 to 3 to approach this Court by filing WP(C) No.21365/2021 challenging the above stand. 5. As per Ext.P16 judgment, this Court found that, filing of Form 5 application is necessary and accordingly the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioners submit applications in Form 5 within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment, the said application shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon within two months, taking note of the fact that the property stands included in the Data Bank as ‘purayidam’. It was also observed in Ext.P16 judgment that, in view of the fact that, the entry in the Data Bank is neither as a paddy land nor as a wetland, it prima facie appears that the petitioners would be entitled to an order deleting the property from the Data Bank. Based on the finding in Ext.P16, the petitioners 1 to 3 submitted Ext.P17 series of applications in Form 5 before the 1 st respondent on 25.11.2021. The other petitioners have also submitted Exts.P18, P19 , P20, P21 and P22 which are the applications in Form 5. As Exts.P18 to P22 applications were not being considered within a reasonable time, the petitioners 4 to 8 submitted WP(C) No.7354/2022 before this court, which was disposed of as per Ext.P23 judgment, wherein, a direction was issued to the 1 st respondent to consider Form 5 applications as well as Form 6 applications to be submitted by petitioners therein within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. 6. However, as the directions in Exts.P16 and P23 judgments were not complied with, the petitioners have filed Contempt of Court Case (Civil)Nos.235/2022 and 1542/2022 before this Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid Contempt of Court Cases, it was submitted by the Respondents that Form 5 application submitted by the petitioners were allowed and Form 6 applications will be considered without any delay. During the pendency of the aforesaid Contempt of Court Cases, it was submitted by the Respondents that Form 5 application submitted by the petitioners were allowed and Form 6 applications will be considered without any delay. Exhibits P24 to P31 are the orders allowing Form 5 applications. 7. However, immediately thereafter, I.A.No.1/2022 was filed by the 1 st respondent seeking permission from this Court to withdraw Exts.P24 to P31 orders passed in Form 5 application, based on a report submitted by the Village Officer, Rameswaran Village on 7.11.2022. Exhibit P32 is the report of the said Village Officer. As per Ext.P32, it was reported that, certain portions of the property are seen as wetland and therefore it was observed that the property cannot be excluded from the Data Bank. This Court vide Ext.P33 order in Contempt of Court Case (C) No.235/2022 on 23.12.2022, permitted the 1 st respondent to withdraw the said orders and directed the 1 st respondent to take appropriate steps and to obtain KSREC report in the matter. Accordingly, Exts.P34 and P35 orders were issued withdrawing Exts.P24 to P31 orders and also mentioning that, upon petitioners paying the fees, the report will be obtained from KSREC. Accordingly, the reports of KSREC were obtained, which are produced in this writ petition as Exts.P36 to P37. After production of the KSREC reports before this Court in the Contempt of Court Cases, Ext.P38 order was passed granting permission to the 1 st respondent to pass revised orders taking note of the reports of the KSREC and other relevant aspects. 8. Later, Exts.P39 and P40 orders rejecting the form 5 applications submitted by the petitioners (Ext.P39 is in respect of Form 5 applications of Petitioners 1 to 3 and Ext.P40 is the order on the applications submitted by the petitioners 4 to 8). In Exts.p39 and P40 orders, the 1 st respondent, after referring to KSREC reports, came to the conclusion that the properties are not liable to be excluded from the Data Bank as the same were not converted prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act. This Writ Petition is submitted by the petitioners in such circumstances challenging Exts.P39 and P40 orders. 9. The Contempt of Court Case was later disposed of by this Court without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to challenge Exts.P39 and P40. 10. This Writ Petition is submitted by the petitioners in such circumstances challenging Exts.P39 and P40 orders. 9. The Contempt of Court Case was later disposed of by this Court without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to challenge Exts.P39 and P40. 10. A statement was filed by the 1 st respondent reiterating their contentions already raised and justifying the stand taken by the 1 st respondent in Exts.P39 and P40. 11. I have heard Smt. M.A. Vaheeda Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Preetha K.K., the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State. 12. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, Exts.P39 and P40 cannot be treated as legally sustainable, in view of the fact that the relevant facts which ought to have been taken into account, while considering the applications in Form 5, were not taken into account. The contents of Exts.P36 and P37 of KSREC reports were also not properly appreciated, even though the same would indicate that the properties were not fit for paddy cultivation as on the date of enactment of the Paddy land Act. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader opposes the aforesaid contentions by pointing out that the impugned orders are passed after examining all relevant aspects and also based on site inspection, which is referred to in the impugned orders. 13. After carefully going through the records particularly the impugned orders viz., Exts.P39 and P40, I find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the impugned orders, one of the reasons highlighted by the 1 st respondent is that, there is waterlogging in the property and there is aquatic vegetation in the property. It was also taken note of the fact that, in the KSREC reports, the property was observed under scattered mixed vegetation/plantation/trees with partially water logged condition in the data of 2008. These aspects formed the basis of the conclusion in Exts.P39 and P40. 14. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, as far the adjudication on Form 5 application is concerned, what is relevant is whether the property in question satisfies the definition of “paddy land” as defined under section 2(xii) of the Act, as on the date of enactment of the Act. 14. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, as far the adjudication on Form 5 application is concerned, what is relevant is whether the property in question satisfies the definition of “paddy land” as defined under section 2(xii) of the Act, as on the date of enactment of the Act. The said definition reads as follows: 2(xii) "paddy land" means all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals” 15. On carefully going through the statutory definition of “paddy land” as referred to above, it can be seen that, such property must be a property where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for a paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow. Here in this case, it is an admitted position that the paddy is not being cultivated in the property for a long period. Therefore, the consideration should have been to find out whether the property was suitable for paddy cultivation as on the date of enactment of the Act. In Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner and Another [2021(6)KHC 316] , it was observed that merely for the reason that the lands are lying low and are waterlogged, the same cannot be included as paddy lands in the data bank. 16. Here in this case, evidently the 1 st respondent came to the conclusion that, the property cannot be removed from the data bank, because of the fact that the property was found to be waterlogged. The suitability of the land to be used for paddy cultivation as on the date of enactment of Paddy Land Act, was not at all considered in the impugned orders. Going by the statutory definition of Paddy Land Act, that should have been the only consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, any order without entering into such finding cannot be treated as an order passed in tune with the requirements contemplated under the provisions of Paddy Land Act. Therefore, I am of the view that, the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore, any order without entering into such finding cannot be treated as an order passed in tune with the requirements contemplated under the provisions of Paddy Land Act. Therefore, I am of the view that, the matter requires reconsideration. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P39 and P40, with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider Form 5 applications submitted by the petitioners by specifically considering the nature of the properties after conducting a site inspection either directly or through a competent officer from his office to find out the status of the property as on the date of enactment of Paddy Land Act was suitable for carrying out paddy cultivation. Fresh orders are to be passed on the said inspection and also taking into account the inputs in the KSREC reports referred to above as well. Such orders shall be passed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.