T VALSARAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of 66 cents of paddy land in survey No.538/5 of Ramanattukara Village, is aggrieved by Ext.P11 decision of the 3rd respondent, not to include 1.37 acres of paddy land, which was converted in violation of the statutory provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and owned by the 4th respondent, in the Data Bank. Admittedly, the alleged reconversion was effected before 2008 and he has been legally fighting for the reconversion of the said land from 2000 onwards. By Ext.P5 order, the Government directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner after the final publication of the Data Bank as per the Act. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent or 3rd respondent has not taken any action in compliance with the direction in Ext.P5 order, passed by the Government and aggrieved by the inaction, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25891/2011, seeking a direction to 2nd and 3rd respondents to take effective steps in compliance with the direction in Ext.P5 order. This Court directed the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P10 in that Writ Petition in terms of the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. In compliance with the said judgment, the 3rd respondent considered the matter and passed Ext.P11 order, stating that the disputed property is not a paddy land and the 4th respondent has reclaimed the said land, before the commencement of Act 28 of 2008; so, the 3rd respondent has no power to include the land, which was reclaimed before the commencement of the Act, into the Data Bank. The legality and propriety of the said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments challenging the findings of the 3rd respondent in Ext.P11 order and it is specifically contended that the 3rd respondent has wriggled out of jurisdiction and power conferred on them under the Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, merely on the reason that the disputed land was converted before the commencement of Act 28 of 2008, the 3rd respondent closed the proceedings, instead of reporting the matter of unauthorised convertion of the paddy land, to the 2nd respondent, in compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 5(4)(iv) of the Act to take action under Kerala Land Utilisation Order.