V.J. THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner is the owner of 55.58 ares of property lying in Sy.Nos. 217/10, 217/10/1, 217/11 and 217/11/1 situated in Vallichira Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam. Prior to the purchase of the property, the same was already used as a garden land consisting of coconut, jack fruit trees etc,. The existence of paddy fields has attempted to be brought on record by the respondent, was emphatically, denied.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that all the properties in the adjoining areas are rubber plantations. The property of the petitioner, prior to the year 2008, was a converted land. Since the land reflected in the data bank as reclaimed, the petitioner necessarily submitted an application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) constituted/established under Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as '2008 Act'. Another application, as provided under clause 6(2) of the erstwhile Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, was also submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer/3 rd respondent vide Ext.P3. Since the application remained pending, the petitioner approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No.13787 of 2018. This Court vide order dated 13 th April 2018 disposed of the writ petition with certain directions.

(3.) Sanguine of the fact that the authorities are to take necessary action, the petitioner produced the copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent ie., the Chairman LLMC which was required to take action within a period of one month. Vide impugned order dated 14th November 2019, Ext.P5, Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the application by directing the petitioner to submit an application in respect of the property under the provisions of 2008 Act. It is in these circumstances, the cause of action accrued to file the present writ petition. In support of the contentions, over and above the grounds referred to in the writ petition, Mr.Mathew John raised the following submissions: