JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. 1. Since a common issue is involved in all these writ petitions, they were heard and disposed of by a common judgment. W.P.(C)Nos.6520, 9726 & 9689 of 2021 2. These writ petitions are filed challenging an order issued by the Village Officer, Punnapra, wherein a direction was issued to the petitioners to restore the land to its original position, or else proceedings will be initiated against them. W.P.(C)Nos.8535, 8586 & 8596 of 2023 3. These writ petitions are filed challenging an order dated 21.02.2023 issued by the District Collector, Alappuzha, wherein a direction was issued to the petitioners to restore the property to its original position on finding that the property has been illegally converted and further, directing the Agricultural Officer to take steps to include the property in the data bank and also directing the Tahsildar(LR), Ambalappuzha to include the property as 'nilam' in the BTR. 4. W.P.(C)No.8535 of 2023 will be treated as the leading case and the facts pleaded in the said writ petition are adverted to here: A property having an extent of 5 Ares 99 sq.m., comprised in Sy.No.442/16 of Punnapra Village(old Sy.No.158/1A1) was purchased by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 sale deed and the said purchase was made after ascertaining the true nature of the property, since the petitioner wanted to purchase a pacca dry land for the purpose of construction of a building upon the said property. Ext.P2 fair value notification fixed the land value of the said land as Rs.2,25,000/-, treating the said property as a residential plot with national highway - PWD road access. By Ext.P3, the Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Punnapra intimated that the property is not included in the data bank. In Ext.P4 Basic Tax Register(BTR) the nature of the property is entered as a dry land (purayidam). Consequently Ext.P5 tax receipt also shows the property as purayidam. Ext.P7 is the Thandaper Register in respect of the property showing the property as purayidam and Ext.P8 Possession Certificate, where the land has been classified as dry land and after purchasing the property, mutation was effected and thereafter Ext.P9 land tax receipt was issued, which also shows the property as purayidam and further, Ext.P10 Possession Certificate after the purchase also reveals that the property has been classified as dry land. A road is passing through the northern boundary of the property under the ownership and possession of the petitioner. The Panchayat road underwent development work and gradient of the road was raised consequently, making the property of the petitioner low lying land. The petitioner would submit that he has verified every documents and records and on being satisfied that the subject property is purayidam, he has purchased the same as per Ext.P1. While so Ext.P12 notice was issued by the Village Officer, Punnappra directing the petitioner to stop the leveling work of the land and to restore the nature of the land to its original position. Aggrieved by the same a writ petition was filed as W.P.(C)No.6520 of 2021, which is also posted along with this writ petition, and by Ext.P13 interim order the Court directed the District Collector to consider the objections of the petitioner against Ext.P12 stop memo and to take a decision on the same. Ext.P15 satellite images from the KSREC was also obtained. While the matter was pending before the District Collector, this Court has issued Ext.P16 interim order staying the operation of Ext.P12 stop memo. The District Collector without considering the contentions of the petitioner in a proper manner, passed Ext.P17 order concluding that, the land is a marshy land and therefore, a direction was issued to restore the property to its original position and with a consequential direction to the Agricultural Officer to include the property in the data bank and a further direction was issued to the Tahsildar(LR) to include the property as 'nilam' in the BTR. It is aggrieved by the same that the above writ petitions were filed. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it stated that a site inspection was conducted by the Village Officer and it was found that the land is a wet land, one foot below the normal level and the petitioner was attempting to fill up the land with gravel contravening the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008') and it is in the said circumstances that action was taken. It is further stated that the land in question is marked as 'nilam' in the Settlement Register and is only by a mistake that the property was marked as purayidam in the BTR. It is further stated that the land in question is marked as 'nilam' in the Settlement Register and is only by a mistake that the property was marked as purayidam in the BTR. It is further stated that the petitioner is purposefully filling the land claiming that the gradient of the Panchayat road was raised. 6. Heard the rival contentions on both sides. 7. A perusal of Ext.P17, which is the order passed by the District Collector in respect of 3 extent of properties involved in these writ petitions in the name of one Sharafudheen, Ramlath and Haseem, would reveal that the reason stated by the District Collector to issue a direction to the Agricultural Officer to include the property in the data bank is that in the Settlement Register, the property has been included as nilam and that the property is a low lying land and it is only due to an anomaly in the resurvey that the property has been entered as purayidam in the BTR and further that the property is a marshy land. 8. Let me first consider the validity of the stop memo issued by the Village Officer, which are impugned in W.P.(C)Nos.6520, 9726 & 9689 of 2021. A perusal of the stop memo would reveal that the Village Officer has directed to stop levelling of the property and a consequential direction was issued to restore the property to its original position. Section 12 empowers the Village Officer to act as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . Section 12(b) empowers the Village Officer to issue stop memo for any act in contravention of Section 3 or Section 11. Section 3 deals with prohibition on the conversion or reclamation of paddy land and Section 11 deals with prohibition on the conversion or reclamation of wetland. Admittedly, at the time of issuance of the stop memo, the property was never a paddy land and it was all along a purayidam in all the records, including the revenue records and the property is not included in the data bank as per the documents referred to above in this judgment. Admittedly, at the time of issuance of the stop memo, the property was never a paddy land and it was all along a purayidam in all the records, including the revenue records and the property is not included in the data bank as per the documents referred to above in this judgment. Further, Section 12 does not empower the Village Officer to issue a direction to the parties to restore the property to its original position and the only power granted to the Village Officer as per Section12 is to issue a stop memo to restrain any act in contravention of Section 3 or Section 11 of the Act, 2008. Section 13 deals with the power of the District Collector and it empowers the District Collector to issue a direction to restore any land to its original position(any paddy land or wetland reclaimed violating the provisions of the Act, 2008). Admittedly, at the time of issuance of the stop memo by the Village Officer, the property was never classified as a paddy land in any of the records, and the same was not even included in the data bank. This court in a similar situation in Shanawaz Mytheenkunju v. Village Officer, Keerikkad Village [ 2025 (1) KHC 447 ] has held that since the property has been classified as purayidam in the basic tax register and in other records and further that, the property has not been included in the data bank, the Village Officer has no jurisdiction under Section 12 to issue a stop memo, since the power granted under Section 12 is only to issue a stop memo, in case of illegal conversion of paddy land or wetland and not for the property classified as purayidam in the BTR. It is further to be noted that in the stop memo issued by the Village Officer a direction was issued to restore the property to its original position, which also is one exceeding the jurisdiction of the Village Officer empowered as per Section 12 of the Act, 2008. It is further to be noted that in the stop memo issued by the Village Officer a direction was issued to restore the property to its original position, which also is one exceeding the jurisdiction of the Village Officer empowered as per Section 12 of the Act, 2008. As per the stop memo issued by the Village Officer, a further direction was issued to restore the property to its original position, which in my view is a direction exceeding the power granted as per Section 12 of the Act, 2008, inasmuch as such a direction could be issued only by the District Collector invoking the power under Section 13 of the Act, 2008. In view of the above 2 reasons, (i) the property at the time of issuance of stop memo was never a paddy land or wetland; (ii) the Village Officer is not empowered to issue a direction to the party to restore the property to its original position, invoking the power under Section 12, I am of the view that the stop memos issued by the Village Officer impugned in W.P. (C)Nos.6520, 9726 & 9689 of 2021 are liable to be interfered with. 9. The next aspect to be considered is the validity of the order passed by the District Collector dated 21.02.2023. One of the contentions raised by the learner Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that a direction has been issued to the Agricultural Officer to include the property in the data bank and the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the District Collector is not empowered as per the provisions of the Act 2008 to direct the Agricultural Officer/LLMC to include the said property in the data bank. This Court in James Antony Alosious v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Alappuzha [ 2025 (4) KHC 491 ] has considered a similar issue, wherein the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued a direction to the Local Level Monitoring Committee to include a property in the data bank and this Court has held that since the Local Level Monitoring Committee is the sole authority to include a property in the data bank, the Revenue Divisional Officer is not empowered to direct the LLMC to include a property in the data bank. The Division Bench of this Court in Ramachandran v. Salim [ 2025 (4) KLT 832 ] has also considered the similar issue and held that the District Collector / RDO cannot dictate the LLMC to include certain property in the data bank and that the Act does not empower the said authority to issue such a direction to the LLMC to include certain properties in the data bank. 10. Let me now consider the reasons stated by the District Collector to issue the impugned directions. Admittedly, the property is not included in the data bank. In the BTR, the property has been included as purayidam, and in all other revenue records as stated above, the property is shown as dry land(purayidam). The reasons stated in the impugned order passed by the District Collector are that, in the settlement register the property has been included as nilam, the property is a low lying land when compared to the nearby land and the entry in the BTR as purayidam can only be due to an anomaly in the resurvey and further that, the property has been lying as marshy land. The KSREC report in respect of the property comprised in Sy.No.442/16 was obtained and in the observation and conclusion in the said report it is clearly stated that the plot is bordered by a road on northern side and it was observed partially under fallow land with scattered vegetation/plantation towards north and east side in the data of year 2006 and 2011. Further in 2016 data, the area is under scattered vegetation/plantations and it is observed as increased towards east side. In the 2020 data also, the property is having scattered vegetation/plantations removed from the predominant area. Therefore, as per the data of 2006, the property is bordered by a road on northern side and observed partially under fallow land with scattered vegetation/plantation towards north and east side. In the 2020 data also, the property is having scattered vegetation/plantations removed from the predominant area. Therefore, as per the data of 2006, the property is bordered by a road on northern side and observed partially under fallow land with scattered vegetation/plantation towards north and east side. This Court in Indira P.S. and others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and another [ 2020 (4) KHC 33 ] while considering a case where in the old settlement registers the description of the property is shown as 'nilam' and in the BTR the property has been described as purayidam, the Court held that BTR is a vital statutory document and an entry in such a vital statutory document cannot be simply ignored and the said description in the BTR cannot be disturbed merely because in some old records like the Settlement Register, the description of the property is shown otherwise. The Division Bench of this Court in District Collector, Kollam v. Thangal Kunju [ 2025 (6) KHC 381 ] held that when there is an event of inconsistency between the Settlement Register and Basic Tax Register (BTR), it is the Basic Tax Register that should be followed by the Revenue Authorities. It was further held that the provisions in Rule 2(1)(e) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, which defines 'Basic Tax Register' to include even the settlement register, came into force only on 15.12.2018 and therefore the said entry can have no impact on the lands which are classified as purayidam in the BTR much before the Rules came into effect and that the Rules were never intended to unsettle any entry in the BTR made prior to the inclusion in 2018. The Court further held that for treating land as paddy land or wetland, the entries in the BTR or Settlement Register are not decisive and it must be established that the land comes within the meaning of paddy land or wetland as defined under the Act, 2008 as on the date of the enactment. Therefore, only for the reason that a property has been included as 'nilam' in the Settlement Register, the same cannot be included in the data bank, since the BTR is a vital statutory document and the entries therein cannot be simply ignored merely on the ground that in the Settlement Register the property is described distinctly. 11. Therefore, only for the reason that a property has been included as 'nilam' in the Settlement Register, the same cannot be included in the data bank, since the BTR is a vital statutory document and the entries therein cannot be simply ignored merely on the ground that in the Settlement Register the property is described distinctly. 11. Yet another reason stated for directing the inclusion of the property in the data bank by the District Collector is that the property is a low lying land when compared to the nearby lands. This Court in Jessy Abrabam v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvanathapuram [ 2021(6) KHC 316 ] has categorically held that merely for the reason that the land is lying low, the same cannot be included as a paddy land in the data bank. 12. In the light of the discussion as above, I am of the view that the direction issued by the District Collector to the petitioners to restore the land to its original position is liable to be interfered with. Further, I have already held that the District Collector has no authority or power to issue a direction to the Agricultural Officer/LLMC to include a property in the data bank. None of the reasons stated in the impugned orders to issue such a direction for the inclusion of the property in the data bank, is without any basis. In the light of the above, these writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders impugned in these writ petitions.