JUDGMENT : P.M. Manoj, J. 1. The captioned appeals arise from the judgment dated 21.11.2024 in WP(C) No.20360 of 2021 and the order dated 27.03.2025 in RP No.184 of 2025 respectively. 2. The appellant is the additional 3 rd respondent who is stated to be owner of the property, adjacent to the parcel of paddy land having an extent of 36.02 Ares, owned by the 1 st respondent in Survey No.376/1A(1) and 376/1(A)2 of Alangad Village in Paravoor Taluk. It is the case of the appellant that, on the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short ’the Act’), the above mentioned property of the 1 st respondent was not included in the Data Bank, though it was allegedly recommended by the Committee constituted under the Act. The appellant’s attempt to include the property in Data Bank resulted in Ext.R3(a) communication to the Agricultural Officer to include the land in Data Bank. It was also stated to be in the agenda of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (for short ’LLMC’) convened on 13.10.2014 and a decision was taken to finalise the proceedings after conducting a site inspection. However, that did not fructify. 3. In such circumstances, the appellant preferred a complaint before the District Collector which was forwarded to the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam, who in turn forwarded it to the Agricultural Officer, Kadungallur to include the same in the Data Bank. Accordingly, the 2 nd respondent, RDO, took a decision to include the property in the Data Bank on 26.02.2020 and Ext.P22 final Data Bank evidences that the property is included in the Data Bank. That was challenged by the 1 st respondent herein in the writ petition. By allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge declared that the inclusion of the property in the Data Bank is wrong and directed the 1 st respondent to approach the appropriate authorities under Section 27A, but there was no declaration regarding Ext.P22. The Review Petition preferred by the 1 st respondent against judgment dated 21.11.2024 was considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge decided to quash Ext.P22, by which the property in question was included in the Data Bank, by modifying the judgment. It is against the judgment in the writ petition as modified by the order in the Review Petition that the captioned writ appeals are preferred. 4. The learned Single Judge decided to quash Ext.P22, by which the property in question was included in the Data Bank, by modifying the judgment. It is against the judgment in the writ petition as modified by the order in the Review Petition that the captioned writ appeals are preferred. 4. Originally, the 1 st respondent purchased the property comprised in Survey No.376/1A(1) and 376/1A(2) of Alangad Village, Ernakulam District as per sale deed No.7734/2007 dated 26.11.2007 of Alangad SRO. Though the property is classified as ’Nilam’ in Revenue Records, it was not included in the Draft Data Bank produced as Ext.P2. Under such circumstances, the 1 st respondent approached the Revenue Divisional Officer under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short ’KLU Order’). The said application was allowed as per order dated 30.04.2019 by the RDO, Fort Kochi. Such order was passed by the RDO after considering the report by the Village Officer, Alangad and the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer, Kadungalloor wherein categorically reported that the property has coconut palms approximately 30 years old and was not included in the Data Bank as the same was not recommended by the LLMC after conducting site inspection and examining the report obtained from KSREC on the direction of this Court. The physical boundaries of the property are the Panchayat road on the East, buildings on the West and North sides and main road on the South side. 5. After a thorough evaluation of Ext.P20 order of the RDO, Fort Kochi and in the light of Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala , 2020 (4) KLT 448 and District Collector v. Fr. Jose Uppani , 2020 (4) KLT 612 , the learned Single Judge entered into a finding that inclusion of the property was against the direction of RDO. However, following the Full Bench in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jacob Boben , 2024 KLT OnLine 2348, the learned judge directed the 1 st respondent to apply under Section 27A of the Act, after clarifying that conversion charges could not be demanded and further directing the authorities to consider the application if any, preferred by the 1 st respondent strictly in accordance with law within the stipulated time. 6. We have heard Sri.T.C. Suresh Menon for the appellant, Sri.P.M. Siraj for the 1 st respondent and Smt.B. Vinitha, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 & 3. 7. 6. We have heard Sri.T.C. Suresh Menon for the appellant, Sri.P.M. Siraj for the 1 st respondent and Smt.B. Vinitha, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 & 3. 7. The primary consideration before us is the correctness of the direction in the impugned judgment in Writ Petition as well as Order in Review Petition for which it is required to consider Section 5 of the Act. Under Section 5 the most relevant portion is sub-section (4) which deliberates the functions of the Committee constituted under sub-section (2). For the purpose of clarity, sub-section (4) is extracted hereunder: “ (4) The Committee shall perform the following functions, namely :- (i) to prepare the data-bank with the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland, within the area of jurisdiction of the Committee, with the help of the map prepared or to be prepared by the State Land Use Board or Centre-State Science and Technology Institutions on the basis of satellite pictures by incorporating the survey numbers and extent in the data-bank and get it notified by the concerned Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation, in such manner as may be prescribed, and exhibit the same for the information of the public, in the respective Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation Office and in the Village Office/Officers; (ii) to make alternate arrangements under section 16 where a paddy land is left fallow without taking steps in spite of the instructions given by the Committee under item (iv) of subsection (3); (iii) to prepare detailed guidelines for the protection of the paddy lands/wetlands in the areas under the jurisdiction of the Committee; (x x x) (omitted by Act 29 of 2018) (v) to perform such other functions, as may be prescribed from time to time.” 8. The words employed under sub-section (4) of Section 5 completely reveal the legislative wisdom whereby the entire duty of preparing the Data Bank is vested with the LLMC. There is no role stipulated for the District Collector or RDO or any other officials in the matter of inclusion of any property in the Data Bank. The words employed under sub-section (4) of Section 5 completely reveal the legislative wisdom whereby the entire duty of preparing the Data Bank is vested with the LLMC. There is no role stipulated for the District Collector or RDO or any other officials in the matter of inclusion of any property in the Data Bank. The duty of the Committee is to prepare the Data Bank after collecting the details of cultivable paddy land and wet land within the area of their jurisdiction with the help of the map prepared or to be prepared by the State Land Use Board or Centre-State Science and Technology Institution on the basis of Satellite pictures by incorporating the survey numbers and get it notified by the concerned Panchayat or Municipality. Such steps to be taken by exercising powers provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 5, especially under sub-clause (ii). From the bare reading of these relevant provisions, it reveals that only cultivable paddy land as on 12.08.2008, where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation, but uncultivated and left fallow, is to be included in the Data Bank. 9. From the said legislative perspective, looking into the facts of the case, especially Ext.P20, it appears that the RDO, while exercising powers under KLU order under Clause (6) after obtaining report from the Village Officer and Agricultural Officer with respect to the physical nature of the property, issued a conscious direction to remove the property from the Date Bank. The RDO took such decision on the premise that, though the property is categorised as ‘Nilam’ in revenue records, on the inspection conducted by the LLMC and considering the report obtained from the KSREC and on the basis of the direction from this court, there were coconut palms approximately 30 years old, similar coconut trees and buildings are situated and the appearance of the property shows that it was converted years ago and no agricultural activities have been carried out and the property surrounded by Panchayat Road on the east and buildings on the west and north sides and main road on the south side. The application was preferred by the 1 st respondent on 22.07.2017. The application was preferred by the 1 st respondent on 22.07.2017. Though Section 27A was introduced by that time, in the light of the Full Bench decision in Jacob Boben (supra) and other Division Bench decisions, the application pending as on 30.12.2017 had to be considered under the KLU Order alone, thereby there is no jurisdictional error on the part of the RDO. Therefore, there is no error occasioned by the learned Single Judge in sustaining Ext.P20 order. 10. In the aforementioned circumstances, we are of the view that merely on the basis of a complaint by a neighbouring property owner and in the absence of any finding with respect to the procedure followed, the District Collector/RDO cannot dictate the LLMC to include certain property in the Data Bank. While enacting the provisions of the Act, no such powers have been contemplated by the Legislature that empower the District Collector or RDO to direct LLMC to include certain properties in the Data Bank whereas specific powers are provided under Section 27A to remove certain erroneous entries in the Data Bank by following prescribed procedures. No such circumstances have been mooted by the District Collector while directing the Principal Agricultural Officer and the consequent direction issued to the Agricultural Officer to include the property in the Data Bank as per Ext.P22. Therefore, we cannot find any error on the part of the learned Single Judge in quashing Ext.P22 by passing the impugned order in RP No.184/2025. On the above findings, we cannot sustain the challenges raised against the judgment dated 21.11.2024 in WP(C) No.20623/2022 and the order dated 27.03.2025 in RP No.184/2025. The Writ Appeals are dismissed accordingly.