JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of a property having an extent of 4.21 Ares comprised in Re.Sy.No.50/15 (Old Sy.No.226/5C) in Block No.27 of Alathur Village. The petitioner purchased the said property as per the sale deed dated 07.04.2022 of SRO, Alathur. According to the petitioner, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner earlier submitted an application under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order , 1967 and the same was allowed as per Ext.P2 order dated 13.04.1993 by which permission was granted to convert the property for residential purpose. Thereafter, as the property was included in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Paddy Land Act'), the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5. Later, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.27736/2023 for expeditious disposal of the Form 5 application. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment in which direction was issued to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Form 5 application taking note of the order passed under the Kerala Land Utilization Order . The 1 st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, issued Ext.P7 order rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging the said order. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent. In the said statement, it was averred that, even though the property was granted permission to be converted under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order , such permission was subjected to certain conditions. It was also averred that, as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the property was not physically converted for residential purposes as permitted under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and currently the property is lying fallow. Therefore, it was reported by the Agricultural Officer, the same has to be retained in the Data Bank. It is also averred that, on the northern side of the property, there is Palakkad- Thrissur Highway and the rest of the boundaries are currently paddy lands and therefore exclusion of the property from the Data Bank will adversely affect the adjacent paddy lands. 3. Heard Smt.Mini.V.A., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Amminikutty K., learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. 3. Heard Smt.Mini.V.A., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Amminikutty K., learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 order, which was passed by the 1 st respondent, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner in support of the challenge is that, the property is already converted prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act, on the strength of Ext.P2 permission granted to the petitioner under the provisions of Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order . However, the said contention is stoutly opposed by the learned Government Pleader, mainly relying upon the conditions imposed in Ext.P2. 5. On going through the contents of Ext.P2 order under Clause 6(2) of KLU Order, it is seen that, the permission was granted by the authority concerned to construct a residential building in the said property subject to certain conditions including that, the property should not be sold to any other person. The relevant part of Ext.P2 order reads as follows: “Subject to the condition that the field to field irrigation should not be obstructed due to conversion that the land should be utilised for the purpose for which it is granted and that the land should not be sold to other person as permission is granted for his own use only as house site and no exemption from water, tax will be granted.” Besides, it was also stipulated that a utilization certificate certificate should be submitted to the RDO in due course. Thus, it is evident that, Ext.P2 order was granted to enable the predecessor in interest of the petitioner to utilize the said property for residential purposes and it was subject to certain conditions to the effect that, the property should not be sold to other persons as permission is granted to his own use. Further, it was also stipulated that, the field to field irrigation should not be obstructed due to the conversion. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the submission of utilization certificate before the RDO in due course was insisted. The specific case of the respondents is that, even though permission was granted as per Ext.P2, that was never acted upon and the conversion never made. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the submission of utilization certificate before the RDO in due course was insisted. The specific case of the respondents is that, even though permission was granted as per Ext.P2, that was never acted upon and the conversion never made. On going through the records it is evident that, even though the petitioner contends that the property was reclaimed on the strength of Ext.P2, the fact remains that no residential building as permitted in Ext.P2 is put in place. No utilization certificate was also submitted. Therefore, the mere fact that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner obtained Ext.P2 certificate would not lead to a conclusion that property stood reclaimed on the basis of the same. 6. However, that by itself cannot be a reason to reject the application submitted by the petitioner. Even if the petitioner cannot take resort to the permission granted as per Ext.P2, while considering the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5, it has to be considered by treating the same as any other property and all the necessary enquiries to find out whether the property was having the characteristics and features of paddy land as defined under Section 2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act, prior to the enactment of the Act ought to have been conducted. On going through Ext.P7 order it is seen that, the 1 st respondent did not conduct such an enquiry and rejected the application, mainly declining the contention of the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P2 KLU Order and also accepting the report of the Agricultural Officer to the effect that the property was not converted prior to 2008. 7. After carefully going through the entire records, I am of the view that, that is not sufficient. An independent assessment ought to have been made by the 1 st respondent, to examine the nature of the property and a conclusion should have been arrived at as to whether the property satisfies the definition of paddy land as defined under the Act, on the date of enactment of the Paddy Land Act. An independent assessment ought to have been made by the 1 st respondent, to examine the nature of the property and a conclusion should have been arrived at as to whether the property satisfies the definition of paddy land as defined under the Act, on the date of enactment of the Paddy Land Act. Of course, it is true that, in the statement submitted by the 1 st respondent, it is averred that no conversion took place prior to 2008, and even now, on three sides of the property, there are paddy lands and exclusion of the property from the Data Bank would adversely affect the adjacent paddy lands. However, since no such observations or findings are there in Ext.P7, the respondents cannot improve their case by making averments in the statement filed in the writ petition, which do not contain in the impugned order. Therefore, as the Ext.P7 order does indicate any proper enquiry, which was required to be conducted for determining the exact physical condition of the property as on the date of enactment of the Paddy Land Act, an interference is required. 6. That apart, one of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, while taking a decision on the application of the petitioner, the 1 st respondent ought to have resorted to the scientific data in the form of the report of the KSREC, the additional 4 th respondent herein, which is prepared on the basis of the satellite images showing the nature of the property. I am of the view that, considering the nature of the dispute, such scientific data was also necessary as that would have helped the 1 st respondent to resolve the dispute more effectively. In such circumstances, 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 Paddy Land Act to reconsider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5. While taking a decision an independent assessment as to the nature of the property before the enactment of the Paddy Land Act has to be made by the petitioner after taking note of the observations in this judgment and also perusing the scientific report of the KSREC to be obtained. While taking a decision an independent assessment as to the nature of the property before the enactment of the Paddy Land Act has to be made by the petitioner after taking note of the observations in this judgment and also perusing the scientific report of the KSREC to be obtained. To enable the 1 st respondent or the authorized officer to have such an enquiry, the following directions are issued;- i The petitioner shall submit an application before the additional 5 th respondent (Agriculture Officer) along with prescribed fees for getting a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre regarding the nature of the property of the petitioner prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008. Such an application shall be submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, the said application shall be forwarded by the additional 5 th respondent to the KSRSEC and report shall be obtained within a period of one month. ii On receiving such report, the same shall be forwarded by the additional 5 th respondent to the 1 st respondent or to the authorized officer under Section 2 (xvA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, along with his report within a period of two weeks. iii Upon receipt of the same, the 1 st respondent or authorized officer as referred to above, shall take a fresh decision on the Form-5 application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, taking note of the reports of the the additional 5 th respondent as well as KSRSEC. The said order shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report referred to above.