PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of a total extent of 44.76 Ares of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.87/1 and 87/3 of Thavanur Village, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District. It is stated that, though the lands are classified in the revenue records as 'nilam' for about nearly 30 years, the lands were garden land with coconut, various plantains and other trees. Through Ext.P1 notice dated 9.5.2014, the District Collector, Malappuram directed the petitioner to restore the land situated in Re-Sy.No.87/3 to its original condition as 'paddy land'. This order was challenged before this Court through W.P.(C)No.13290/2014. That writ petition was disposed of as under:-

(2.) I have heard Sri. T. Krishnanunni, the learned senior counsel instructed by Sri. Anish Antony, for the writ petitioner and Sri. Syamji Ram, the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent.

(3.) The learned senior counsel with reference to Ext.P1, to Ext.P2 judgment of this Court and to Exts.P6 and P10 proceedings of the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the provisions of the 2008 Act, would contend that the respondent Revenue Divisional Officer could not have ignored the finding of the majority of members of the Local Level Monitoring Committee to hold that the lands comprised in Re.Sy.No.87/3 of Thavanur Village, in the ownership and possession of the writ petitioner should be classified as 'paddy land' in the data bank prepared under the provisions of the 2008 Act. The learned senior counsel would also refer to Ext.P12 to contend that even in the report of the KSREC, there is no categoric finding to establish that the lands comprised in Re.Sy.No.87/3 were 'paddy lands' even on the date of commencement of 2008 Act. He also submits that inspection stated to have been carried out by the respondent prior to the issuance of Ext.P11 order was carried out without any notice to him.