PATTARPALAM-EDAKKARA SHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGAM Vs. DISTIRCT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society engaged in sale and distribution of milk. It applied for permission before the Revenue Divisional Officer for conversion of the land having an extent of 5.1835 cents in Re-survey No. 49/1 of the Thalakulathur Village, Edakkara desom in Kozhikode District for the purpose of constructing a building. The above land is coming under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The petitioner made a request in terms of S. 5(3)(i) of the Act read with R. 5(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") framed thereunder before the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The Local Level Monitoring Committee recommended for reclamation of the paddy land on the ground of 'public purpose'. As per the provisions under the relevant Act and Rules, the above aspect has to be scrutinized by the State Level Committee in terms of S. 8(3) of the Act for the purpose of forwarding the same for taking a decision by the Government. It appears that instead of forwarding the recommendation to the State Level Committee, the Local Level Monitoring Committee forwarded the recommendation to the District Level Authorised Committee which, in turn, forwarded the same to the State Level Committee, of which the third respondent is the Convener. It appears that the State Level Committee did not recommend for conversion of the land. Based on the report received from the State Level Committee, the Government, as per Ext. P11, passed an order rejecting the petitioner's request. It is challenging Ext. P11, this Writ Petition is filed. Heard Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner points out to S. 8(3) of the Act, which provides as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the State Level Committee has no power to sit upon the recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The learned counsel further submits that the power with the State Level Committee is only to scrutinize each application recommended by the Local Level Monitoring Committee for filling up or reclaiming paddy land for public purpose.