T.R. Ravi, J.
1. The petitioners are owners of 48.79 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.587/4 of Kakkanad Village in Kanayannur Taluk of Ernakulam District. They had
obtained the properties as per Document No.3092/2007 of Sub Registrar's Office, Aluva. The 1st petitioner is also the owner of 8.09 Ares comprised
in the same survey number purchased as per Document No.1979/2007. According to the petitioners, the land had been converted several years
before. The basic tax register shows the properties as 'nilam'. The draft data bank describes the property as filled up land with coconut of seven
years. The petitioner had filed W.P.(C)No.9027 of 2015 before this Court praying for deletion of the property from the data bank. The writ petition
was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment holding that the petitioners' remedy is to apply under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU
Order for short). Ext.P1 will show that the Special Government Pleader had submitted that the properties had been converted prior to the
commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (2008 Act for short) and that the provisions of the Act will not be
applicable to the petitioners. The petitioners applied before the District Collector under the KLU Order on 15.2.2016. Ext.P2 is the application. The
District Collector called for a report from the Tahsildar, Kanayannur. By Ext.P3 report, the Tahsildar reported that the property is a converted land
with coconut trees planted and is surrounded by a compound wall and that there are apartment buildings in the neighbouring properties. Ext.P3 report
is based on the report dated 11.2.2015 submitted by the Village Officer, which has been produced as Ext.P4 and the report of the Agricultural Officer
is produced as Ext.P5. However, the petitioners submit that no further action was taken based on Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioners submit that they
had informed their counsel regarding the disobedience of Ext.P1 judgment and thereafter W.P.(C)No.10916 of 2016 was filed wherein it was prayed
that there may be a direction to complete the proceedings on the basis of Ext.P2 representation dated 15.2.2016. The writ petition was heard along
with several other writ petitions and by Ext.P6 common judgment a general direction was issued for getting reports from the Local Level Monitoring
Committees as to whether the properties are converted prior to the commencement of the 2008 Act and thereafter to decide the applications under
the KLU Order. The petitioners' case was not considered on facts and happened to be disposed of along with the other cases, without reference to
Ext.P1 judgment. Based on the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, reports were called for from the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) in the
case of the petitioners also, though the petitioners were not informed of the same. It is stated that the Committee referred the matter to the Kerala
State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) who submitted Ext.P7 report on 18.3.2020. By Ext.P8 decision dated 25.6.2020, the LLMC
concluded that the petitioners' property cannot be treated as land converted prior to 2008 and decided to include the property in the data bank as
'nilam'. It is the case of the petitioners that they were never put on notice regarding any of the above developments and they did not have any notice
regarding the reference made to the KSREC or the LLMC. The petitioners submit that they once again approached their counsel about the non-
compliance of the directions of the judgments of the High Court and on advice of the counsel, a fresh writ petition was filed as W.P.(C)No.3905 of
2021 wherein a prayer similar to the one made in W.P.(C)No.10916 of 2016 was made seeking a direction to expedite the proceedings on Ext.P3
representation. This Court by judgment Ext.P9 dated 19.3.2021, directed expedition of the proceedings. It can be seen from the judgment that the two
earlier judgments had not been brought to the notice of this Court. Pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, the District Collector passed an order rejecting the
application under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order. The order is produced as Ext.P10. Ext.P10 says that in the light of the report of the KSREC and the
decision of the LLMC, the land has been included in the final data bank and therefore the application cannot be allowed. According to the petitioners,
it is only when they got the order from the District Collector, they came to know about the report of the KSREC and the LLMC. Ext.P11 is the
notified data bank showing the property as 'nilam'. The writ petition was filed in the above circumstances. The petitioner submits that the Thrikkakara
Municipality has issued two building permits in relation to the property which have been produced as Exts.P12 and P13. It is also submitted that from
Ext.P14, it can be seen that the District Collector had informed the Geologist that in the existing data bank, the property is shown as “filled 2001,
'coconut' â€. The said letter was issued in the context of an action proposed for removal of mud on which a vehicle was seized.
2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The facts are not in dispute. The order rejecting the request under Clause 6(2) of KLU Order is
sought to be justified based on the report of the KSREC and the LLMC.
3. Heard the counsel on either side.
4. From Ext.P10, it can be seen that the KSREC report says that the plot was observed under fallow land with scattered vegetation in the south east
side in the 2006 data and that the same land use practises were observed in the subsequent years 2011, 2016 and 2019. The KSREC report does not
say that the property was paddy land. The judgment Ext.P1 specifically records the submission of the Special Government Pleader that the properties
have been shown as converted prior to the commencement of Act 28 of 2008 in the draft data bank and as such, the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 are
not applicable to the properties in question. The draft data bank specifically said that it has been converted seven years earlier. It is in the light of the
specific contention put forward by the State that this Court had directed the petitioners to file a petition under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order before
the competent authority. It is clear from the subsequent judgments that this Court had not considered Ext.P1 judgment. The fact that admittedly the
properties had been converted prior to the 2008 Act, was not noticed in the subsequent judgments. The petitioners cannot be denied relief for the sole
fact that they had approached the Court again. It can be seen that they had approached the Court only because actions pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment
were not forthcoming, and their grievance continued. A possible wrong advice cannot also take away the right of the petitioners in such
circumstances. It has been held by this Court that what is to be included in the data bank is only paddy lands or wetlands and not lands which had
been filled up prior to the 2008 Act. The very fact that the property of the petitioner has been included in the data bank with a remark that it is
“filled 2001, 'coconut' “, itself shows that it is not a paddy land. This aspect is also supported by the KSREC report which says that the area
was found with vegetation in the southeast and was observed under fallow land. In such circumstances, the reasoning in Ext.P10 cannot be sustained,
and the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition.
5. The writ petition is hence allowed.  Ext.P10 order is quashed. Ext.P8 decision of the 3rd respondent insofar as it relates to the petitioners'
property is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P2 petition submitted by the petitioners under the KLU Order based
on the finding of this Court that the property in question has been filled up prior to 2008. The subsequent entry made in Ext.P11 is also without any
basis and is liable to be corrected. The 3rd respondent shall take necessary steps to issue the notification correcting the entry and removing the
petitioners' lands from the data bank. Necessary orders shall be issued within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
