JUDGMENT : 1. Above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P12 order whereby the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is in ownership and possession of 16 cents of dry land in Sy.Nos.9/5, 8/2A and 8/2B of Vaniyamkulam I Village, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad District. It is contended that the property is situated adjacent to the State Highway from Shornur to Palakkad and is surrounded by several commercial buildings. The property is reclaimed atleast 25 years ago and there is no paddy cultivation in the property atleast during the last 50 years. Earlier the request for issuance of building permit for construction of a commercial building was rejected stating that the property is classified as ‘nilam’ and ‘nanja’ in the revenue records. While so, an application was filed under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and a writ petition was filed as WP(C) No.3540 of 2017 seeking expeditious consideration of the said application. In the said writ petition, Ext.P7 report was filed by Local Level Monitoring Committee, wherein it is reported that the property in Sy.Nos.8/2A and 8/2B are not included in the data bank and the property in Sy.No.9/5 is classified as ‘nanja’ and the same was recorded in the data bank as ‘converted for construction of house’. It was also found in Ext.P7 report that the property is surrounded by several industrial units and there is no paddy cultivation in the nearby vicinity, and even if permission is granted for conversion it will not affect the free flow of water and will not cause any environmental problems in the locality. This Court adverting to Ext.P7 directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the application under KLU as per Ext.P8 judgment, but the Office of the 1 st respondent insisted as a pre-condition for considering the said application that the petitioner has to prefer an application to remove the property from the data bank. Thereupon, an application in this regard was filed, but in the said application the Local Level Monitoring Committee took a totally different stand as evident from Ext.P9 that, conversion of the property will adversely affect the environment and the paddy cultivation. Thereupon by Ext.P10 the application was rejected. Thereupon, an application in this regard was filed, but in the said application the Local Level Monitoring Committee took a totally different stand as evident from Ext.P9 that, conversion of the property will adversely affect the environment and the paddy cultivation. Thereupon by Ext.P10 the application was rejected. Petitioner challenged the same filing WP(C) No.18478 of 2021, wherein Ext.P10 order was set aside with a consequential direction to the 1 st respondent RDO to reconsider the application with reference to all the materials on record including Ext.P7 and report of KSRSEC and pass a fresh order. Later on, fresh orders were passed as per Ext.P12 again rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein relying on the judgment in Sulekha Khadar v. Kuzhimanna Grama Panchayat [ 2022 (6) KHC 116 ] it is contended that the stand of the petitioner that impugned order is bad for not granting an opportunity of hearing is without any basis. It is after considering the KSRSEC report as well as the materials found out in the physical verification that the application was rejected. It is further submitted that in the enquiry and on the basis of the records it was found that the property has not been converted prior to 12.08.2008. There are no improvement or trees which would show that the property has been converted prior to 12.08.2008. Reliance is also placed by the learned Government Pleader on Exts.R1(a) KSRSEC report, R1(b) report of the Agricultural Officer and R1(c) report of the Village Officer. 4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 5. Ext.P7 is a report submitted by the Local Level Monitoring Committee before this Court in WP(C) No.3540 of 2017 which reveals that properties in Sy.Nos.8/2A and 8/2B is not included in the data bank and property in Sy.No. 9/5 is included in the data bank as converted for house construction. It is also reported that the conversion if granted will not create any environmental hazards nor the same would obstruct the free flow of water and that there is no paddy cultivation in the nearby locality, and the property is situated by the side of a highway and on both sides of the property there were industrial establishments functioning. It is also reported that the conversion if granted will not create any environmental hazards nor the same would obstruct the free flow of water and that there is no paddy cultivation in the nearby locality, and the property is situated by the side of a highway and on both sides of the property there were industrial establishments functioning. After directing consideration of the application by this Court as per Ext.P8 a fresh report was submitted by the Local Level Monitoring Committee which is a two line report which says that they are not recommending for granting permission for conversion as it will affect the environment and the paddy cultivation based on which Ext.P10 order was issued. But the said order was set aside by this Court by Ext.P11, with a specific direction that the application has to be reconsidered with reference to all materials on record including Ext.P7 and report of the KSRSEC. But the application was again rejected by Ext.P12. The Sub Collector again relied on Ext.P9 report dated 16.12.2019 which is in a printed form and no reasons have been stated therein as to how the conversion will create environmental issues and adversely affect the paddy cultivation. 6. A perusal of Ext.P12 will not reveal that the findings in Ext.P7 report was taken into consideration. Yet another aspect to be considered is the draft data bank, in which also the property has been shown as converted for house construction. Ext.P9 report which was again relied for rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner as per Ext.P12 is totally an incomplete report without any details as to how they have entered into a finding that the conversion of the property will create environmental issues and will affect the paddy cultivation. There is no finding in Ext.P12 that there is any paddy cultivation in the nearby locality. A perusal of Ext.P12 would also reveal that the said order was issued based on the report of the Agricultural Officer that on examination, the property was found to be fallow and has not been converted prior to 2008. There is no finding in Ext.P12 that there is any paddy cultivation in the nearby locality. A perusal of Ext.P12 would also reveal that the said order was issued based on the report of the Agricultural Officer that on examination, the property was found to be fallow and has not been converted prior to 2008. The KSRSEC report is produced along with a memo dated 11.03.2024 and is the ultimate analysis regarding the property comprised in Plot No.9/5, it is seen that in 1967 the property was observed as paddy land, and the plot was observed as under fallow land with mixed vegetation/trees towards the eastern part in 2003 data, and the same land use pattern continued in the data of 2011, 2015 and 2018. A perusal of the said KSRSEC report reveal that during 2003 the property was observed as fallow land with mixed vegetation/trees towards the east part, and the said land use pattern continued for the further years. The reason for rejecting the said finding in KSRSEC report is also not seen considered in a proper manner while issuing Ext.P12 order. 7. This Court in Sudheesh U. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [ 2023 (2) KHC 505 ] has held that only for the reason that the property is left fallow, it cannot be brought within the definition of paddy land and going by the definition of paddy land in Section 2 (12) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2008’) and to bring in the land within the definition of paddy land it should be suitable for paddy cultivation, but uncultivated and left fallow, and the Revenue Divisional Officer should be satisfied that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation and left fallow, and only on satisfaction of the said two conditions that the land could be treated as paddy land coming under the definition of Section 2 (12) of the Act, 2008. It is settled law that the Revenue Divisional Officer can take into consideration the KSRSEC report, the findings in the site inspection and also the report of the Agricultural Officer for entering a finding as to whether the property is a paddy land or not but it is the ultimate satisfaction of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the property was lying as a paddy land as on the coming into force of the Act, and that the property is suitable for paddy cultivation. Eventhough in Ext.P11 judgment in WP(C) No.18478 of 2021 this Court has directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to take into consideration Ext.P7 report of the LLMC while reconsidering the application in Form-5, no reason has been stated as to why Ext.P7 report of the LLMC cannot be accepted. Likewise what is the basis on which the Sub Collector entered into a finding that going by KSRSEC report the property is not found to be converted prior to 2008 is also not forthcoming. 8. This Court has on various occasions considered the scope of consideration of the Form-5 application and the relevant factors to be taken into consideration while considering the same. This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others, 2017 (1) KHC 394 has held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala , 2020 (5) KHC 490 has held that the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, 2021 (1) KLT 433 it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. In Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, 2021 (1) KLT 433 it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, 2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222 has held that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSRSEC. This court in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (4) KLT 270 has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from the Data Bank, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to remove the land from Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer being the competent authority, has to independently assess the status of the land and come to a conclusion that removal of the land from Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question or in the nearby paddy lands or that it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable. Further, this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (5) KLT 432 has held that the predominant factor for consideration while considering the Form5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. Further, this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (5) KLT 432 has held that the predominant factor for consideration while considering the Form5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. Further this Court in Aashique’s case cited supra has also held that the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot reject a Form-5 application solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, and the RDO being the competent authority has to independently assess the status of the land and come to the conclusion that the removal of the land from the data bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question or the neighbouring paddy land or will adversely affect sustenance of wetland area, and that the relevant consideration for inclusion of the property as paddy land or wetland is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the declaration of law as stated above, I am of the view that the Revenue Divisional Officer was duty bound to consider the application in a proper manner taking into consideration the findings in Ext.P7 report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and also the findings of the KSRSEC report. If the Sub Collector is of the opinion that the findings in Ext.P7 report and the observations in the KSRSEC report cannot be accepted, the Sub Collector was duty bound to give cogent reason for not being able to accept the same. Therefore, Ext.P12 is set aside with a consequential direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application in Form-5 submitted by the petitioner, and reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will be free to submit his notes of argument which shall also be duly considered while reconsidering the matter as directed above. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.