it was unnecessary for the first respondent to call for the reports of the fourth respondent to consider the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 27A of the Act. It was also contended by the learned counsel that in so far as the land of the petitioner is shown in the data bank prepared under the Act as one converted prior to the coming into force of the Act, the first respondent ought to have allowed the application. It was further contended by the learned counsel that at any rate, in so far as the first respondent has proposed to direct the fourth respondent to include the land of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 assignment deed in the data bank prepared under the Act after holding that the land is a cultivable paddy land, it was obligatory on the part of the first respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before a direction to that effect was issued to the Local Level Monitoring Committee. It was also argued by the learned counsel that the first respondent has no authority to issue a direction to the fourth respondent to include in the data bank, a land which was excluded from the data bank by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, for, the authority in terms of the Act, and the Rules made thereunder, to make such inclusion is the Local Level Monitoring Committee and not the first respondent. It is further argued by the learned counsel that at any rate, even if the land of the petitioner is one liable to be included as paddy land in the data bank prepared
