JUDGMENT : The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 02.55 Ares (6.30 cents) of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.323/6-4-3-2 in Block No.36 of Aluva East Village in Aluva Taluk in Ernakulam District. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the fact that the property of the petitioner stood reclaimed even prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, , the same was included in the Data Bank as Paddy land. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in Form-5, which was rejected as per the Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging the same. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent in response to the averments in the writ petition. It is averred in the said affidavit that, after perusing the report of Local Level Monitoring Committee, which is prepared after obtaining the satellite images and report from the KSRSEC, it was observed that, the property is remaining as fallow land, and therefore, it was assumed that the land was not converted before 2008. Thus, a recommendation was made to the Revenue Divisional Officer to retain the property in the data bank. Besides, in para 3 of the counter affidavit, it was also observed that the property was surrounded by buildings on three sides, and on one side, there is a road. 3. I have heard Sri. Soyuz P.K, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ranjith, the learned Special Government Pleader for the state. 4. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in Ext.P6, an independent assessment of the 2nd respondent was not there, and instead, the order was passed by simply accepting the decision taken by the LLMC as reported by the 3rd respondent. One of the specific contentions advanced by the petitioner is that, the reliance placed on the report of the LLMC itself was not proper in view of the fact that the statutory requirement as contemplated under Rule 4(e) is to obtain a report from the Agriculture Officer in respect of properties which are included in the data bank with a description as paddy land. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed upon Ext.P7 circular dated 25.03.2024 issued by the Government wherein it is directed to all the Agricultural officers that it is not necessary to insist on obtaining a report from LLMC for the purpose of submitting a report in connection with the consideration of application in Form 5. 5. On going through this statutory requirements, as contemplated under Rule 4(e), I find that, the said submission is sustainable. In Ext.P6, the decision was taken on the basis of a recommendation made by LLMC, which is not something contemplated under the Rules. The Rule only provides for the report of the Agricultural Officer and the said requirement was understood by the Government clearly and that is the reason why the Ext.P7 circular was issued. When the statute contemplates for the report of the Agricultural Officer, he is expected to submit the report based on the enquiry independently conducted by him and he cannot resort to the decision of the LLMC. Therefore, Ext.P6 order, which was passed mainly relying on the recommendation of LLMC is liable to be interfered with. 6. Besides, another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the property is surrounded by buildings on three sides and a road on the other side. Thus it is a landlocked property. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the observations made by this Court in Niyas v. District Collector, Palakkad ( 2023 (6) KLT 118 ) wherein it was observed that, if it is a property lying as landlocked, i.e., surrounded by the reclaimed lands, it cannot be concluded that the property is fit for paddy cultivation and therefore it is not necessary to retain such property in the data bank. In this case, it is an admitted fact from the averments made in the counter affidavit itself that, the property is surrounded by buildings on three sides and on the other side, there is a road. Therefore, evidently, the said property is a landlocked property and therefore, it is very difficult to assume that it is fit for paddy cultivation. As far as the definition of expression “paddy land” as per in Sec.2(xii) of the Act is concerned, one of the requirements is that, the land has to be fit for paddy cultivation. Therefore, evidently, the said property is a landlocked property and therefore, it is very difficult to assume that it is fit for paddy cultivation. As far as the definition of expression “paddy land” as per in Sec.2(xii) of the Act is concerned, one of the requirements is that, the land has to be fit for paddy cultivation. Therefore, that is also a relevant aspect to be taken note of while considering the application submitted by the petitioner. 7. In this case, it is evident from the observations made in Ext.P6 and also from the averments made in the counter affidavit that, the property is lying as fallow land as per the reports of the KSRSEC and therefore, they have assumed that it was not reclaimed prior to 2008. Such a stand is not justifiable as it is a well-settled position that merely because the land is lying fallow, it will not come under the definition of “paddy land” as per Sec.2(xii) of the Act. To treat the property as paddy land, it must have all the features and characteristics of a paddy land as defined under the said provision, wherein one of the requirements is that it must be fit for paddy cultivation. 8. In this case, on going through the contents of Ext. P6 and also the averments contained in the counter affidavit, no such conclusion is possible. Moreover, as held by this Court in Krishnankutty Menon v. District Collector, 2025 KLT Online 1187, the characteristics of the adjacent properties are also relevant while making a decision on the Form-5 application submitted by the party. In this case, as observed above, the adjacent properties are reclaimed lands where buildings and roads are in existence. Therefore, this is also a matter crucial for determining the status of the property. In such circumstances, an interference is required. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P4, with a direction to the 2nd respondent, the authorized officer under Section 2(xvA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, to reconsider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner in the light of the observations made by this Court in this judgment and also on the decisions referred to above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.