JUDGMENT : (Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.) The 1st petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 4.048 Ares of land in Re-Survey No.23/1G (old Survey No.25/3) of Kattooli Village, Kozhikode District. The 2nd petitioner is the owner of property having an extent of 12.24 Ares comprised in the very same Survey number. They have acquired the said properties by virtue of Exts.P1 and P2 documents. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the properties were included in the Data Bank as wetland, erroneously. In such circumstances, they submitted Exts.P8 and P9 applications in Form 5 which were considered by the 2nd respondent and Ext.P12 and P13 orders were issued. As per Exts.P12 and P13, the 2nd respondent found that the properties are wetland and therefore not liable to be excluded from the Data Bank. Challenging Exts.P12 and P13 orders this writ petition was submitted by the petitioners. 2. A statement is submitted by the respondent in response to the averments contained in the writ petition wherein, it is averred that Exts.P12 and P13 decisions were taken after inspecting the land and being found that there was water logging in the properties of the petitioners, even on non-rainy season. Therefore they sought to justify the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P12 and P13. 3. Heard, Sri.Sandesh Raja. K, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Deepa V, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State. 4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the Exts.P12 and P13 are legally sustainable. The specific case advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, Exts.P12 and P13 orders are non-speaking orders without specifically making any attempt to determine whether the properties of the petitioners have the characteristics of a ‘wetland’ as defined under Section 2(xviii) of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Paddy Land Act'). The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam [ 2020 (2) KLT 192 ]. 5. After carefully going through the contents of Exts.P12 and P13 orders, I find merits in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam [ 2020 (2) KLT 192 ]. 5. After carefully going through the contents of Exts.P12 and P13 orders, I find merits in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is discernible from the orders that, the 2nd respondent arrived at the conclusion by simply accepting the report submitted by the Village Officer, which was referred to therein as reference No.2. Apart from the adoption of the recommendations made by the Village Officer, no independent assessment of the nature of the property is seen made in the impugned orders. Besides, even going by the impugned orders, it can be seen that, what was mentioned in the report of the Village Officer was that, there is water logging in the property. In this regard it is to be noted that, the term ‘wetland’ is defined under Section 2(xviii) of the Paddy Land, which reads as follows: “wetland” means land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterized by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, marshes, salt marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and rivers; 6. Thus, going by the definition of the “wetland”, it is evident that, merely because, there is water logging in the area, the property cannot be treated as a wetland. It must satisfy all the characteristics specified in the definition referred to above. In this case, whether the properties of the petitioners are having the said characteristics mentioned in the definition of wetland as contained in Section 2(xviii) is not examined. The view taken by this court as above, is fortified by the observations made by a Division Bench of this court in Mather Nagar Residents Association (supra), wherein, it was held that merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during the rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. 7. 7. Besides, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the nature of adjacent properties is also relevant. It is pointed out by placing reliance upon Ext.P16, which is in respect of an adjoining land comprised in Re-Survey No.55/1 of Chevayur Village that, it was not included in the Data Bank and as per Ext.P16 order the said property has been permitted to be classified as dry land in the revenue records as well. Besides, the petitioners also relied on Ext.P14, which is a reply received by the petitioners from the Deputy Collector (LR), Collectrate, Kozhikode, wherein it is mentioned that a portion of the property comprised in Survey No.231/1G is not included in the Data Bank whereas the property of the petitioner which also comprised in the very same survey number is mentioned as wetland in the Data Bank. Therefore, the characteristics of adjoining properties are also relevant while considering the application submitted by the petitioners in Form 5 and to determine the actual characteristics of the properties of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that, the water logging in the property by itself cannot be treated as a ground particularly since, the Highway has been constructed through the property adjacent to that of the petitioners, and this has also contributed to the water logging. 8. After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that, since Exts.P12 and P13 orders were passed by the 2nd respondent without taking note of any of the aspects referred to above, but instead, the conclusion was arrived after simply accepting the report of the Village Officer in this regard, it cannot be treated as an order passed by fulfilling the requirements contemplated in the Paddy Land Act. Since the purpose of consideration of Form 5 application is to find out the nature of the property as on the date of enactment of the Paddy Land Act, the 2nd respondent is duty bound to consider and make an independent assessment of his own, by appreciating all relevant aspects and the report of the Village Officer is only one of the documents to be taken note of. Under no circumstances can the report of the Village Officer be accepted as a final decision when there are other reliable materials which lead to a different conclusion. Under no circumstances can the report of the Village Officer be accepted as a final decision when there are other reliable materials which lead to a different conclusion. In other words, if there are other factors which lead to a definite conclusion that the property is not a wetland, nothing would preclude the 2nd respondent from taking a judicious decision in the matter, even if the report of the Village Officer is to the effect that the property is a wetland. However, while taking a decision against the recommendations of the Village Officer, the order should contain the reasons for such rejection. Thus, after considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that, interference is required in this matter. Therefore, Exts.P12 and P13 orders are quashed with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider Exts.P8 and P9 applications submitted by the petitioners with specific reference to the aspects as referred to above, and by conducting an independent assessment of the characteristics of the properties of the petitioners. The orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.