P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.:— The petitioner holds an item of land measuring 4.05 Ares within the limits of Kadungalloor Village. The land of the petitioner is included in the draft data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). Although the land of the petitioner is shown in the revenue records as paddy land, the case of the petitioner is that the same was one lying as dry land when the Act came into force and therefore, the same ought not have been included in the data bank prepared under the Act. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext. P2 application before the fifth respondent, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (the LLMC) constituted under the Act for removal of his land from the data bank. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the LLMC in considering Ext. P2 application. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that after the amendment to sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (the Rules) in terms of SRO 902 of 2018 with effect from 15.12.2018, the LLMCs constituted under the Act are not entertaining applications for removal of lands from the data bank, since in terms of the said amendment, the Revenue Divisional Officers concerned are empowered to exercise that power.

4. In the light of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, it is necessary to examine the question as to whether the LLMCs constituted under the Act have the necessary power to make appropriate corrections in the data bank after the amendment to sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Rules in terms of SRO 902 of 2018.

5. The procedure for preparation of data bank is provided in the Rules. Rule 4 dealing with the said procedure reads thus:

6. As evident from the extracted Rule, the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy lands existing as on the date of coming into force of the Rules, viz, 24.12.2008. In terms of sub-rule (2)(1)(a) of Rule 4, the Village Officer has to provide the Agricultural Officer the particulars of the cultivable paddy lands in the village in terms of the revenue records, and the Agricultural Officer has to inspect those lands thereupon to ascertain whether they are cultivable. Thereafter, in terms of the said sub-rule, both the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer together have to prepare a draft data bank of the paddy lands. In terms of sub-rule (2)(1)(b) of Rule 4, the LLMC concerned shall, thereupon, examine the draft data bank prepared under sub-rule 2(1)(a) of Rule 4 and finalize the same by making appropriate corrections therein, having regard to the satellite pictures of the lands. Sub-rule (4) of the Rules provides that the data bank finalized in terms of sub-rule (2)(1)(b) of Rule 4 shall be forwarded by the LLMC thereafter, to the Secretary of the concerned Local Self Government Institution and he shall cause the same to be notified in the Gazette. Sub-rule (4d) of Rule 4 provides that if anybody is aggrieved by any entry in the notified data bank, he can prefer an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and sub-rules (4e) and (4f) of Rule 4 provide that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the same and make appropriate corrections in the data bank, after calling for the report of the Agricultural Officer concerned and also after inspecting the land and perusing the satellite picture of the land, if necessary.

7. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 which was in existence even at the time when sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 was amended in terms of SRO 902 of 2018, provides that if anybody is aggrieved by any entry in the notified data bank, he can prefer an application before the LLMC, and sub-rules (7) and (8) of Rule 4 provide that if an application is received under sub-rule (6), the LLMC shall consider the same and make appropriate corrections therein, after causing an inspection to be made and after perusing the satellite picture of the land. It is seen that when sub-rule (4d) of Rule 4 of the Rules was introduced, sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 was not omitted from the Rules. In other words, the position now is that a person who is aggrieved by an entry in a notified data bank can either approach the Revenue Divisional Officer or the LLMC for appropriate correction therein or for removal of his land from the data bank.

8. On a query from the Court, the learned Government Pleader submitted that in majority of the Local Self Government Institutions in the State, the data bank is yet to be finalized. This Court has held that until the data bank is finalized, the draft data bank has to be regarded as the data bank for all practical purposes and the authorities under the Act would be well within their powers in acting under the Act based on the draft data bank [See Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 1 KLT 651]. Even while the Rules provide for two different remedies to a person who is aggrieved by an entry in a notified data bank, there is no remedy provided for under the Rules to a person who is aggrieved by an entry in a draft data bank prepared in terms of sub-rule 2(1)(a) of Rule 4. In Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2014) 1 KLT 774, this Court held that the LLMC constituted under the Act can, at any time, look into the ground realities and make appropriate corrections in the data bank. Paragraph 37 of the said judgment which is relevant in the context, reads thus:

37. An authority, which has been conferred with the functions of preparing a Data Bank with the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland, within its area of jurisdiction, with the aid of modern technology and institutions of Science and Technology, under sub-clause (i) of sub-s.(4) of S.5, could, at any time, look into the ground realities and decide upon the suitability for prospective cultivation of such lands. The inclusion is made on the basis of satellite pictures and Revenue records as also maps prepared by the various institutions of the State. After such inclusion, looking at the ground realities emphasized by the binding precedents of this Court, if the preservation of lands as such, is found to be impracticable, the authority could delete such lands from the Data Bank. In the instant case, the Data Bank, admittedly, has not been notified. Again it has, to be noticed; as far as back in Jafarkhan (supra), a Division Bench of this Court cautioned the State Government and brought to its notice the obvious anomalies in the legislation, which the Government has not thought fit till today to address or bring to the notice of the legislature or make sufficient amends in, mitigation of the obvious injustice pointed out by this Court. It is for all the above reasons that this Court holds that when the LLMC has the power to prepare the Data Bank including the cultivable paddy lands, definitely it would have the power to look at whether the same is suitable for cultivation and whether prospective cultivation is feasible and whether such proposition is financially viable. That in effect is the dictum laid down in Castlerock Projects and Developers and Shafeeque (both supra). These are factors upon which the LLMC could again put to use the services of the Institutions and Boards referred to in sub-clause (i) of sub-s.(4) of S.5. In such circumstances, there shall be a direction to the petitioners to approach the LLMC with an application to reconsider the inclusion of the subject lands in the draft Data Bank prepared by the LLMC, for the properties within its jurisdiction., The LLMC shall look at the binding precedents as also the observations of this Court and in accordance with law and keeping in mind the spirit of the enactment, consider the applications and pass speaking orders with respect to each of the petitioners, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the application. The petitioners shall file proper applications within a period of three weeks from today.

9. Of course, the said judgment was one rendered prior to the introduction of sub-rule (4d) of Rule 4 of the Rules. But in so far as even the remedy in terms of sub-rule (4d) of Rule 4 is against the notified data bank, there is absolutely no reason why the LLMCs shall not make appropriate corrections in the data banks which are not notified, as held by this court in the decision referred to above.

10. Of course, even for the purpose of exercising the power to correct the draft data bank, full particulars of the land need to be furnished to the LLMC. Since there is no specific power conferred on the LLMC in this regard, no form is also prescribed for the said purpose. Earlier, when sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 of the Rules was introduced conferring power on the LLMC to correct the notified data banks, there was no prescribed form for preferring applications before the LLMC for the said purpose. Realizing that shortfall, a form was prescribed later in terms of Circular No. TA(2)18988/16 dated 26.07.2017. Insofar as a form is prescribed for exercise of the power of the LLMC to correct the data bank, according to me, if applications are filed in the said form, there is absolutely no reason why the LLMC shall not exercise its powers to make appropriate corrections in the data bank so as to make the same in tune with the requirements of the Act and the Rules.

11. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that Ext. P2 is an application preferred by the petitioner in the form prescribed in terms of Circular No. TA(2)18988/16 dated 26.07.2017. In the circumstances, according to me, the writ petition can be disposed of directing consideration of the said application.

12. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is disposed of directing the fifth respondent to consider Ext. P2 application preferred by the petitioner for correction of the entry relating to his land in the data bank, after obtaining the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) as to the position of the land at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioner shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSREC for issuing the report as and when directed so by the Convenor of the LLMC. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.