JUDGMENT : (ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.) The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 4.82 Ares comprised in Re.Sy.No.565/2-6 in Block 14 of Kaviyoor Village. The petitioner purchased the said property as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 23.05.2013. According to the petitioner, the said property was reclaimed much prior to the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. However, when the Data Bank was prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Paddy land Act), the said property was included therein by describing it as ‘Nikathupurayidam’, which means that reclaimed paddy land. Ext.P3 is the notification of Data Bank containing the description of the property. 2. Therefore, as the property of the petitioner finds a place in the Data Bank, he submitted Ext.P4 application in Form 5 before the 1 st respondent and it culminated in Ext.P7 order by which the same was rejected. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging the same. 3. A statement was submitted on behalf of the 1 st respondent, wherein it is averred that, on examination of the nature and characteristics of the property of the petitioner with the help of the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer and that of KSREC, it was found that, the property was lying fallow and there are no trees in the said property. Therefore, they arrived at a conclusion that the property is not converted as paddy land prior to the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Thus, they sought to justify the decision taken in Ext.P7. 4. I have heard Sri. Varughese M Easo, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Preetha K.K., the learned Government Pleader for the State. 5. The challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext.P7 is mainly by placing based the description of the property in Ext.P3 Data Bank itself. It is pointed out that, in the Data Bank the said property is described as ‘Nikathupurayidam’, which would indicate that, the officers concerned were satisfied that the property stood reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. It is pointed out that, in the Data Bank the said property is described as ‘Nikathupurayidam’, which would indicate that, the officers concerned were satisfied that the property stood reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Besides, the learned Counsel also placed reliance upon the observations made by this Court in Basil v. Local Level Monitoring Committee, [ 2024 (1) KHC 28 ], wherein it was held that, when the property was described as converted land in the Data Bank it is not necessary for the party concerned to submit an application in Form 5 and an application in Form 6 has to be submitted for classifying the property as dryland in the revenue records. 6. The learned Government Pleader opposed the said contention by stating that, the conclusion in Ext.P7 was based on the reports received from the authorities concerned and also taking note of the contents in KSREC report. Therefore no interference is warranted. 7. After carefully going through records, I find merits in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The fact that, the property of the petitioner was described as ‘Nikathupurayidam’ in the Draft Data Bank itself is a clear indication that the authorities concerned, while preparing the Data Bank were convinced of the nature of the property that. the same was reclaimed much prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. As far as the entries in the Data Bank are concerned, the purpose of the same is to create the Data Bank showing the details of the paddy land and wetland. The conditions stipulated in various provisions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, are applicable to the properties which qualifies the definition of “paddy land” or “wet land” and that are included in the Data Bank by describing those properties either as “paddy land” or “wet land”. Therefore, the fact that, the property was described in the Data Bank as ‘Nikathupurayidam’ (reclaimed paddy land) itself establishes that the property was reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Therefore, the only conclusion possible is that, the entry made in the Data Bank as to the property of the petitioner is an erroneous one. 8. Therefore, the only conclusion possible is that, the entry made in the Data Bank as to the property of the petitioner is an erroneous one. 8. In Basil’s case (supra) after examining the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 it was observed in paragraph 9 that, the final Data Bank to be prepared should contain only the details of the properties which are paddy land and wetland as on the date of coming into force the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Section 5(4) (i) of the Paddy land Act, specifically provides for preparation of data-bank with the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland. Conspicuously the said provision does not contemplate for including any other property which is not either paddy land or wetland. Thus, it is evident that the intention to create a Data Bank as per the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, was to include the details of paddy land and wetland alone and not to include any land other than the lands referred to above. 9. Apart from the above, while considering the nature of the land, the recommendation made in Ext.P5 by the Agricultural Officer, whose report is very much relevant for considering an application in Form 5, is also to be taken into account. In Ext.P5 it is specifically recommended that the property has to be excluded from the Data Bank. 10. Thus, an overall analysis of all the above aspects would lead to a conclusion that, when the property was described as converted land in the Data Bank, the same could not have been simply ignored while taking a decision on the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner. The purpose of submitting an application in Form 5 is to remove the erroneous entries in the Data Bank and when a property which is included in the Data Bank with a description that ‘Nikathupurayidam’ (the reclaimed paddy land) certainly the same indicates the nature of the property as on the date of enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and thus, it can be only treated as an erroneous entry. Therefore, the property ought to have been removed from the Data Bank, by issuing necessary orders on the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5. Therefore, the property ought to have been removed from the Data Bank, by issuing necessary orders on the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5. In such circumstances, an interference is required in Ext.P7 order passed by the 1 st respondent. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P7 with a direction to the 1 st respondent or the authorized officer under section 2(xvA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders to remove the property of the petitioner from the Data Bank, in the light of the observations made above. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that, once the orders are passed, the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 6.