JUDGMENT : C.S.DIAS, J. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.1983 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.606 of Vadama Village, Chalakkudy Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The property is a dry land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as paddy land and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 application under Rule 4 (6) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules', for brevity), before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (6 th respondent). By Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had directed the 6 th respondent to consider the application, expeditiously. Ext.P7 report issued by the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environmental Centre (KSREC) explicitly reveals that the property is a fallow land and there is a water body towards the western, eastern and south-east part in the data bank of 2007. By Exts.P8, P9, P10 and P12 decisions of the 6 th respondent, the properties adjacent to the petitioner’s property and comprised in the same survey number, were excluded from the data bank finding them unsuitable for paddy cultivation. However, by Ext.P11 decision, the 6 th has respondent declined to exclude the petitioner’s property from the data bank. Challenging Ext.P11 decision, the petitioner preferred W.P(C)No.29366/2023 before this Court. By Ext.P14 judgment, Ext.P11 decision was quashed and the 6 th respondent was directed to reconsider the matter in light of Ext.P7 KSREC report and after conducting a site inspection. Consequent to Ext.P14 judgment, the 6 th respondent conducted a site inspection, and by Ext.P15 order again rejected the petitioner’s application. The petitioner again assailed the order before this Court. By Ext.P16 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P15 order and directed the 6 th respondent to forward the application to the 2 nd respondent/authorised officer, treating the application as one filed in Form 5 under 4(4d) of the Rules. Notwithstanding the specific directions in Ext.P16 judgment, the authorised officer has only partly allowed the Form 5 application by the impugned Ext.P17 order. Notwithstanding the specific directions in Ext.P16 judgment, the authorised officer has only partly allowed the Form 5 application by the impugned Ext.P17 order. As per Ext.P17 order, the authorised officer has recommended the exclusion of .0413 hectares of land from Re-survey No.606, but has directed 0.1261 hectares of land to be retained in the data bank for the reason that the extent of land is water-logged and there is an irrigation canal of the Mala Grama Panchayat passing adjacent to the property. Ext.P17 order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 2. In the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent, it is inter alia, contended that, in compliance with the directions in Ext.P15 judgment, the office of the 2 nd respondent conducted an inspection on 4.9.2024, where it was revealed that the applied property is divided into two parts, by a road i.e., 4.13 Ares and 12.61 Ares. The extent having 4.13 Ares is adjacent to the road on one side and the other three sides are surrounded by filled land. No paddy filed or wetlands are found near the said property. Additionally, a building is constructed in the said portion of land before 2008. However, in respect of 12.61 Ares, the land is lying lower than the road level and resembles a swamp. A wide canal (Mala Canal) runs along the south-east side, and water from the canal seeps into the area, creating swamp like conditions. The land is inaccessible due to the stagnant water and water channels traversing through it. The land appears to act as a catchment area for the Mala Canal. The above findings stand corroborated by Ext.P7 KSREC report. It was in the above circumstances that Ext.P17 order was passed. There is no illegality in Ext.P17 order. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The petitioner’s specific case is that her property is a dry land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. By Exts.P8, P9, P10 and P12 decisions, the 6 th respondent has excluded the adjacent properties from the notified data bank. It is only the petitioner’s property that was retained in the data bank by Ext.P11 decision, which was set aside by Ext.P14 judgment, directing the 6 th respondent to reconsider the matter, after considering the case laws referred to in the said judgment. It is only the petitioner’s property that was retained in the data bank by Ext.P11 decision, which was set aside by Ext.P14 judgment, directing the 6 th respondent to reconsider the matter, after considering the case laws referred to in the said judgment. Notwithstanding the judgment, the 6 th respondent again rejected the petitioner’s application by Ext.P15 order on the finding that there is a canal passing adjacent to the petitioner’s property, and if the same is excluded from the data bank, it may adversely effect the paddy cultivation. Dissatisfied by Ext.P15 order, the petitioner again preferred W.P.(C) No.14151/2024, which was allowed by Ext.P16 judgment, by observing as follows:- 4. In purported compliance with the above judgment, Ext.P15 judgment order dated 26.03.2024 was passed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee again reiterating more or less the same reasons. It was noticed that a portion of the land was converted before 2008, that the road was passing through the plot, and that there are 12 coconut trees aged more than 25 years. It was also noticed that in the neighbouring Survey numbers, the properties were excluded from the data bank. A reading of Ext.P15 order shows that the reasons given now are almost the in Ext.P11 that was quashed by this Court in Ext.P14 judgment. Though this Court had in Ext. P14 judgment referred to the binding precedents, none of the principles have been considered while passing Ext. P15 order. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P15 order is quashed and there will be a direction to the 6th respondent, Local Level Monitoring Committee to forward the applications of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent within three weeks from today with all the supporting documents. The 2nd respondent or the Authorized Officer shall consider the applications submitted by the petitioner for removing the property from the data bank and pass fresh orders, in the light of the observations made by this court as well as in Ext.P14 judgment and pass fresh orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The impugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed, as above. 5. Pursuant to Ext.P16 judgment, the 6 th respondent transferred the application to the 2 nd respondent (authorised officer constituted under the Act), to reconsider the application afresh, treating the application as a Form 5 application. 6. The impugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed, as above. 5. Pursuant to Ext.P16 judgment, the 6 th respondent transferred the application to the 2 nd respondent (authorised officer constituted under the Act), to reconsider the application afresh, treating the application as a Form 5 application. 6. However, by Ext.P17 order, the authorised officer has again rejected the application. A reading of Ext.P17 order shows that the authorised officer has conducted a site inspection and has observed on the same lines as stated in the statement mentioned above. Nevertheless, in the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent it is stated that it was the office of the 2 nd respondent that conducted the site inspection. 7. Be that as it may, going by the findings in Ext.P17 order, it is seen that the property having an extent of 4.13 Ares of land was excluded from the data bank on the finding that one side of the land is road and the three sides of the property is converted land, and that there is no possibility to conduct any paddy cultivation. Whereas, with respect to 12.61 Ares, the authorised officer has found that there is a wide canal (Mala Canal) running through the south-east side, and water from the canal seeps into the area, creating swamp like conditions and it may adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality, which stands corroborated by Ext.P7 KSREC report. 8. As per the scheme of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act ', for brevity), while considering an application in Form 5, the crucial aspect that has to be considered is whether the property sought to be excluded from the data bank is suitable for paddy cultivation and whether the exclusion of the property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. The legal position is stated in unequivocal terms in Ext.P14 judgment, wherein the decisions of this Court in Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2023 (4) KLT 270 ] , Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [ 2022 (7) KHC 591 ] , Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others Vs. The legal position is stated in unequivocal terms in Ext.P14 judgment, wherein the decisions of this Court in Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2023 (4) KLT 270 ] , Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [ 2022 (7) KHC 591 ] , Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in [ 2014 (1) KHC 685 ] and Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others ( 2020 (2) KLT 192 ) have been extracted for the consideration of the authorised officer. 9. Nevertheless, Ext.P17 order reveals that the authorised officer has not considered the case law referred to above, and has not directly inspected the property or stated reasons to discard Ext.P7 KSREC report. The authorised officer has also failed to render any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on the crucial date i.e., 12.08.2008 and whether the exclusion of 12.61 Ares of the property would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the nearby properties, if any. Hence, I am convinced that Ext.P17 order is erroneous, to the extent of partially rejecting the petitioner’s application and, therefore, the authorised officer be directed to either personally inspect the property or rely on Ext.P7 KSREC report before arriving at a conclusion whether or not the 12.61 Ares has to be excluded from the data bank, after referring to the case law relied on in Ext.P14 judgment. On an overall consideration of the facts, the law referred to above, the materials on record, and the mandate under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, I am inclined to allow the writ petition in the following manner: (i) Ext.P17 order, to the extent of rejecting the petitioner’s application with respect to 12.61 Ares of land is quashed. (ii) The 2 nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with the law as per the decisions referred to above, by either conducting a personal inspection of the property or referring to Ext.P7 KSREC report. (iii) The authorised officer shall carry out the above exercise within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. (iv) The petitioner would be at liberty to produce a copy of the writ petition and the statement before the authorised officer, along with the copy of the judgment. (iii) The authorised officer shall carry out the above exercise within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. (iv) The petitioner would be at liberty to produce a copy of the writ petition and the statement before the authorised officer, along with the copy of the judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.