ABDUL JAMSHEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges Exts. P5 and P6 orders passed by the authorities under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Ext. P5 is an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 21.10.2013 under the Land Utilisation Order, informing the petitioner that his property having an extent of 5 cents, which is treated as paddy land, was converted by the petitioner and that it has to be restored to its original position for the purpose of paddy cultivation.

(2.) EXT . P6 is the order passed by the District Collector on 19.5.2014 by which the District Collector considered the report of the RDO prepared under Section 12(e) of the Act. It is inter alia provided that construction was made in the property by the petitioner. On account of such construction, it was not possible for taking water to the adjacent paddy fields and proceedings appear to have been taken at the instance of the agriculturists in the locality who are having paddy fields in area. It is further indicated that his property has been treated as paddy land in the draft notification issued by the data bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring committee. Under these circumstances, orders had been passed calling upon the petitioner to restore the property to its original position and to use the same for paddy cultivation.

(3.) SINCE the petitioner has an alternate remedy, I do not think that there is any necessity to consider the validity or otherwise of Ext. P6 on merits at this stage of the proceedings and hence I intend to relegate the petitioner to approach the Government by filing the statutory reision. However, on account of the fact that directions had been issued by the 2nd respondent to restore the property to its original position, such direction shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 30 days to enable the petitioner to approach the Government and obtain appropriate orders.