JESSY ABRAHAM Vs. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. The first petitioner holds a land measuring 4.04 Ares in Resurvey No.57/4/1 of Kuttoor Village. The second petitioner holds the adjoining land measuring 4.05 Ares in the very same survey number. The lands of the petitioners are shown in the revenue records as 'nilam'. They are, however, not included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). In order to make use of the land for other purposes, the first petitioner preferred Ext.P3 application before the second respondent for permission under Clause 6(2) of the Land Utilization Order (Kerala). Similar application has been preferred by the second petitioner also before the second respondent. Ext.P4 is the application preferred by the second petitioner in this regard. Ext.P3 application has been rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P9 order. Similarly, Ext.P4 application has been rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P10 order. Exts.P9 and P10 orders have been challenged by the petitioners in appeal before the first respondent. In terms of Exts.P13 and P14 orders, the first respondent affirmed Exts P9 and P10 orders. Exts.P9, P10, P13 and P14 are under challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Ext.P3 application has been rejected by the second respondent holding that the land of the first petitioner is lying at about 2 meters below the road level and would be waterlogged during rainy season and that the Local Level Monitoring Committee under the Act has recommended to include the said land in the data bank prepared under the Act. The relevant portion of Ext.P9 order reads thus: