JUDGMENT : C.S. DIAS, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5.62 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos. 886/1A-56 and 886/1A-57 in Block No.203 in Kannur -I Village, Kannur Taluk. Exts.P1 to P3 sale deeds evidence the petitioner’s title to the property. Ext.P4 parent deed dated 24.11.1948, proves that the applied property is categorised as ‘Nilam Nikathiya Parambu’ from 1948 onwards. The petitioner has effected mutation of the property in his name. Notwithstanding the above documents, the respondents had erroneously classified the petitioner’s property as ‘Nanja’ in the revenue records and ‘wetland’ in the Ext.P6 notified data bank. The property, though so described in the data bank, is situated in the heart of Kannur Town, bounded by commercial buildings to the north, the Kannur Bus Stand to the east, a public road to the south, and a residential building to the west. The property was converted well before the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'Act and Rules'). The petitioner, therefore, submitted Ext.P7 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules, to exclude the property from the data bank. However, based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the authorised officer rejected Ext.P7 application, by Ext.P8 order. Assailing Ext.P8 order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.1617/2025 before this Court. By Ext.P9 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P8 order and directed the authorised officer to reconsider Ext.P7 application, after calling for a report from the Village Officer, as the property is classified as ‘wetland’ in the data bank, and after directly inspecting the property. Notwithstanding the specific directions in Ext.P9 judgment, the authorised officer had again called for Ext.P11 reports from the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer, and again rejected Ext.P7 application by the impugned Ext.P10 order. Even though the authorised officer has stated that he had personally inspected the property, he has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008, the date on which the Act came into force, or whether the exclusion of the property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. It is pertinent to note that the nature of the adjacent properties was changed in the revenue records as per Exts.P12, P13, and P20 orders. It is pertinent to note that the nature of the adjacent properties was changed in the revenue records as per Exts.P12, P13, and P20 orders. Exts.P15 and P16 photographs show the true character and nature of the petitioner’s property. Ext.P10 order is arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and is liable to be quashed. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent, it is inter alia contended that, pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, the authorised officer had called for reports from the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer. The applied property is classified as ‘paddy land’ in the data bank. In such cases, the report of the Agricultural Officer is to be considered; therefore, the authorised officer did not accept the report of the Village Officer. The Agricultural Officer has reported that the land is currently marshy and has not been converted before 2008. Additionally, in the site inspection, a natural stream was found passing through the area. If the property is removed from the data bank, it may cause an environmental impact. The authorised officer also referred to the satellite images. There is no illegality in Ext.P10 order. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 3. I have heard, Sri. Soyuz. P.K., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Preetha. K.K., the learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. The petitioner’s case is that he had purchased the applied property as per Exts.P1 to P3 sale deeds in 1981-82. Ext.P4 is the parent document dated 24.11.1948, which specifically describes the property as ‘Nilam Nikathiya Parambu’, i.e., before the coming into force of the Act. However, the respondents had erroneously classified the land as ‘Nanja’ (wetland) in the notified data bank. It is in view of the said erroneous classification that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P7 application in Form 5. The authorised officer, based on the report of the Agricultural Officer and without directly inspecting the property or calling for satellite pictures as per the mandate under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, rejected Ext. P7 application by Ext.P8 order. Nevertheless, by Ext.P9 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P8 order, by holding as follows: “6. First of all, Ext.P4 order suffers from an inherent defect, in view of the fact that, the property is included in the Data Bank as “wetland”, but the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner was considered after calling for a report from the Agriculture Officer concerned. Nevertheless, by Ext.P9 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P8 order, by holding as follows: “6. First of all, Ext.P4 order suffers from an inherent defect, in view of the fact that, the property is included in the Data Bank as “wetland”, but the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner was considered after calling for a report from the Agriculture Officer concerned. This amounts to a violation of the statutory stipulations contemplated in Rule 4 (d), wherein, it is stipulated that, if the entry in the Data Bank is as a “wetland”, the report must be called for from the Village officer. Therefore, on that reason itself, Ext.P4 has to be interfered with. 7. Besides, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Ext.P5 and P6, which are properties included in the very same survey number and lying adjacent to the properties in question. The said properties were already permitted to be converted, and therefore, in the light of observations made by this Court in Krishnankutty Menon ( Supra ), the nature of the adjoining lands and under the very same survey numbers, which were already permitted to be converted, is also to be considered. 8. Yet another aspect in Ext P4 is that, the same was passed simply accepting the report of the agriculture officer, without conducting an independent assessment of the 2nd respondent, which is also not proper. The 2nd respondent ought to have conducted an inquiry of his own as to the characteristics and features of the property of the petitioner while considering the application. It is also to be noted in that, in Ext P4 order, the application was rejected solely on the reason that in the report of the Agricultural officer it was reported that, the property is low lying, and there is waterlogging. In Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, 2020 (2) KLT 192 , a Division Bench of this court observed that merely because the property is lying fallow and there is water logging, it cannot be termed as wetland. After referring to the observations made in the above decision, it was held in Krishnankutty Menon ’s case (supra) , that, merely because , there is water logging in the area, the property cannot be treated as wetland, and it must satisfy all the characteristics specified in the definition in section 2(xviii) of the Paddy Land Act. After referring to the observations made in the above decision, it was held in Krishnankutty Menon ’s case (supra) , that, merely because , there is water logging in the area, the property cannot be treated as wetland, and it must satisfy all the characteristics specified in the definition in section 2(xviii) of the Paddy Land Act. However, in this case, no such exercise has been carried out, and instead, an order rejecting the application was passed by the 2nd respondent, by simply accepting the report of the Agricultural Officer. For the reasons mentioned above, such the statutory requirements under the Paddy Land Act. In such circumstances, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P4 order, with a direction to the 2 nd respondent, the authorized officer under Section 2 (xvA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, to reconsider Ext.P3 application in the light of the observations made by this Court and the decisions referred to herein. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 5. Despite the unambiguous directions in Ext.P9 judgment, the authorised officer has contumaciously again called for a report from the Agricultural Officer ? an incompetent officer under Rule 4 (4e) of the Rules because the property is classified as ‘wetland’ in the data bank – and has ignored the report of the Village Officer ? the competent officer under the Rules. The Village Officer in Ext.P11 report has in unequivocal terms reported that there are trees approximately 30 years old, that there is a building constructed in the adjacent property, that the property is currently located in a commercial area, that the property was converted before 2008, that there is no paddy cultivation in the surrounding properties, and that excluding the property from the data bank will not adversely affect the surrounding properties. Moreover, if a canal is constructed outside the property, water will flow smoothly. Therefore, the property can be excluded from the data bank. 6. Regardless of the explicit finding in Ext.P11 report, the authorised officer has passed the impugned order solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Though it is stated that the authorised officer had inspected the property, there is no cogent material to substantiate his independent finding in the above regard. Furthermore, Exts. 6. Regardless of the explicit finding in Ext.P11 report, the authorised officer has passed the impugned order solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Though it is stated that the authorised officer had inspected the property, there is no cogent material to substantiate his independent finding in the above regard. Furthermore, Exts. P12, P13, and P20 orders undoubtedly demonstrate that the adjacent properties were excluded from the data bank and, thereafter, their nature was changed in the revenue records as per the procedure laid down under Section 27A of the Act. Ext.P11 report also proves that the applied property is landlocked and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. 7. In Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others , 2020 (2) KHC 94 , a Division Bench of this Court has held that mere fallowness or seasonal waterlogging of a low- lying land does not classify the property as a paddy/wetland in contemplation of the Act. 8. Likewise, in Niyas v. District Collector, Palakkad, 2023 KHC 9342 , this Court has held that a property landlocked by roads is inherently unsuitable for paddy cultivation. 9. Similarly, in Aishabeevi and another v. Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam and others, 2014 (3) KHC 678 , this Court has emphatically held that the determination of land classification must be based on ground reality and not merely on revenue records or the deeds. 10. The law has thus crystallised that for a land to qualify as ‘paddyland or wetland’ under Section 2 (xvii) of the Act, it must not only be described so in the data bank, but also be cultivable as on 12.08.2008, and its removal from the data bank should adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the surrounding locality. 11. On an evaluation of the definite directions in Ext.P9 judgment, Ext.P11 report of the Village Officer, that the adjacent properties have been excluded from the data bank and their nature have been changed in the revenue records, that the property is landlocked and the well settled principles laid down by this Court, I am of the definite view that the authorised officer has committed a patent illegality by rejecting Ext.P7 application. 12. 12. In light of the above findings, I do not find any justification to again remit the matter to the authorised officer, which will only prolong the petitioner's miseries, who has been agonisingly waiting from 29.07.2023, which is more than two years, for a decision on the Form 5 application. 13. In Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Another vs. K.S. Jagannathan & Another , (1986) 2 SCC 679 , the Honourable Supreme Court has affirmed that, to prevent injustice, the court may pass directions which the Government or public authority ought to have passed at their level. In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition in the following manner: (i) Ext.P10 order is quashed. (ii) Ext.P7 application is allowed. The applied property is declared unsuitable for paddy cultivation. (iii) The authorised officer is directed to exclude the petitioner’s property from the data bank and issue a consequential notification within 90 days from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (iv) The petitioner shall be at liberty to get the nature of his property changed in the revenue records as per the provisions of the Act and Rules.