FRANCIS THOMAS Vs. VILLAGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up in the above Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows :

(2.) Heard Sri.Abraham Mathew Vettoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the subject property covered by the impugned Ext.P-7 stop memo is a very old road being used, though continues to be described 'as Nilam/Paddy Land' in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), has been converted long prior to 12.08.2008 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of the Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008) and that the fact that the subject property is a converted land is clearly admitted by the respondents themselves through the issuance of Ext.P-2 gazette notification in the matter of the land data bank, wherein in serial No.830 thereof, which has been shown that the land is a converted land and that the land has been so converted about five years prior to the 2008 Act, etc. Hence, it is pointed out that no adverse action in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008 is legally permissible as such adverse proceedings as per Secs.3(1), 11(1), 12, 13, 19, 20 etc., can be initiated only if the subject property would satisfy the definition of paddy land, as per Sec.2(xii) of the 2008 Act as on 12.08.2008.