JUDGMENT Since a common issue is involved in these writ petitions, both were heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. W.P.(C)No.33656 of 2022 is filed challenging Ext.P3 stop memo issued by the respondent, whereas W.P.(C)No.39930 of 2022 is filed seeking a direction to the official respondents to initiate appropriate steps to reclaim the nature of the land, which is in possession of the 5 th respondent(the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33656 of 2022), to its original position and for other consequential reliefs. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33656 of 2022 is the owner and in possession of certain extent of property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. In Ext.P1, the property is classified as 'Purayidom'. The property was mutated and land tax was accepted as per Ext.P2. The contention of the petitioner is that some real estate dealers who reside near the property of the petitioner has approached the W.P.(C). Nos.33656 & 39930 of 2022 vendor of the Ext.P1 property to sell the same to them at a lower price and the vendor did not heed to their demands. After the purchase of the property by the petitioner also, they attempted to trespass and cause damage to the property and thereupon the petitioner has filed O.S. No.326 of 2022 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam and an order of interim injunction was also granted. As the property covered by Ext.P1 was an uneven land, the petitioner took steps to level the land by filling the same with gravel. While so, Ext.P3 stop memo was issued by the respondent Village Officer, though the petitioner apprised the respondent that as per the Basic Tax Register(BTR) the property is 'purayidom' and as certain places were waterlogged he was attempting to level the property. It is seen that an interim order was granted by this Court on 26.10.2022 against Ext.P3 stop memo. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.39930 of 2022 contending that the property is a wet land and the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (in short 'the Act, 2008') is applicable and since various complaints were received by the authorities regarding the W.P.(C). 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.39930 of 2022 contending that the property is a wet land and the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (in short 'the Act, 2008') is applicable and since various complaints were received by the authorities regarding the W.P.(C). Nos.33656 & 39930 of 2022 property, Ext.P3 stop memo was issued by the 1 st respondent Village Officer stating that some areas seems to be wet land and directing stoppage of all further activities of the petitioner to fill up and convert the wet land, till final orders are issued by the concerned authorities. 5. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.39930 of 2022 is the neighbouring property owner of the 5 th respondent(petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33656 of 2022). The contention of the petitioner is that the property of the 5 th respondent falls under the provisions of the Act, 2008 and that the property was remaining uncultivated and fallow for the past few years and during the time of rain, the rain water from nearby properties and roads flows through drainage and reaches in the property in question and from there it flows to the panchayath drainage adjacent to the property. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 5 th respondent started filling up the property illegally and thereupon the petitioner and the other neighbouring property owners have approached the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam by filing O.S.No.342 of 2022 seeking a declaration that the property in question is a wet land and seeking a further W.P.(C). Nos.33656 & 39930 of 2022 direction to restore the property to its original position by removing gravel from the property and further submitted that the said suit is still pending consideration. While so, Ext.P6 stop memo was issued by the Village Officer stopping all the activities of the 5 th respondent for the conversion of wetland to dry land. Thereafter certain complaints were preferred by the petitioner, but no action has been taken by the authorities and in the said circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed. 6. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that in the settlement register, the property is included as 'Nilam', but it is true that in the BTR, the property is classified as 'purayidom'. 7. 6. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that in the settlement register, the property is included as 'Nilam', but it is true that in the BTR, the property is classified as 'purayidom'. 7. A perusal of Ext.P3 stop memo issued by the Village Officer also would reveal that the Village Officer was also aware of the fact that in the BTR, the property has been classified as 'purayidom', but issued the stop memo for the reason that in certain portion of the property there was water logging and there is law and order situation prevailing in the locality and till orders are obtained from the revenue authorities, all further activities in the property were W.P.(C). Nos.33656 & 39930 of 2022 directed to be stopped. Section 12 of the Act, 2008 empowers the Village Officer to direct any person to stop any action which is in contravention of Section 3 or Section 11 of the Act, 2008. Section 3 is regarding prohibition on conversion or reclamation of paddy land and Section 11 deals with prohibition or reclamation of wetland. Therefore, Section 12 empowers the Village Officer to issue stop memo only if there is any activity undertaken in illegal conversion of paddy land or wet land. In W.P.(C) No.33656 of 2022, admittedly the property, even going by Ext.P3, is a 'purayidom' as per the BTR. The respondents have absolutely no case that the property was subsequently included in the data bank. In view of the fact that the property is a 'purayidom', I am of the view that the respondent Village Officer has absolutely no jurisdiction to issue a stop memo in the nature of Ext.P3. The other reason stated for the issuance of stop memo including the law and order situation and water logging etc., are not reasons for invoking the power under Section 12 of the Act, 2008. 8. As regards the reason stated for the issuance of Ext.P3 stop memo that there is water logging in the property, I am of the view W.P.(C). 8. As regards the reason stated for the issuance of Ext.P3 stop memo that there is water logging in the property, I am of the view W.P.(C). Nos.33656 & 39930 of 2022 that, that cannot be a reason for the issuance of a stop memo in view of the judgment of this Court in Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram [2021 (6) KHC 316] wherein it is categorically held that merely for the reason that the land is lying low and is waterlogged, same cannot be included as paddy land in the data bank. The contention of the learned Government pleader that the property was originally 'Nilam' in the settlement register and therefore, the action evidenced by Ext.P3 is legally sustainable also cannot be accepted in the light of the judgment of this Court Indira P.S. and Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another[ 2020 (4) KHC 33 ] wherein this Court has held that BTR is a vital statutory document and entries in such a vital statutory document cannot be simply ignored and that the said description in the BTR cannot be disturbed merely because in some old records like the old settlement register, description of property is shown otherwise. In view of the categorical declaration of law as stated above, I am of the view that Ext.P3 order impugned in W.P.(C) No.33656 of 2022 is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed and W.P.(C). Nos.33656 & 39930 of 2022 the writ petition is allowed. As regards W.P.(C) No.39930 of 2022, I am of the view that none of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition could be granted inasmuch as the property of the 5 th respondent(the petitioner in W.P(C) No.33656 of 2022) is not a paddy land and it is 'purayidom' as per the BTR and therefore, no direction could be issued to the respondents to initiate appropriate steps to reclaim the nature of the land in question to its original version. Accordingly W.P.(C) No.39930 of 2022 is dismissed.