JAYASREE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6.7 Ares of property in Re-Survey No.511/15-1, 511/25 of Peringara Village, Thiruvalla Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. According to the petitioner, the property of the petitioner is included in the Data Bank by describing it as paddy land. According to the petitioner, he does not have any suitable property in the District to construct a residential building of his own and he submitted an application in Form-1, which is produced as Ext.P6. Ext.P7 is the certificate issued by the Village Officer to the effect that the petitioner does not have any other property within the jurisdiction of the Village to construct a residential building. The 5th respondent, Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) considered the said application and passed Ext.P10 order, wherein they have taken a decision not to recommend the relief sought by the petitioner in the application. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Heard Sri.Sherry J.Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Deepa V., learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

(3.) As far as Ext.P10 order is concerned, the same resulted in depriving the petitioner of an opportunity to raise his claim for constructing a residential building by seeking exemption for the property as contemplated under Sec. 9 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter called the Paddy Land Act), before the competent authority, namely District Level Authorized Committee. Sec. 9 of the Paddy Land Act contemplates the powers of the District Level Authorized Committee and it includes the power to consider the application for construction of residential building to the owner of the paddy land. As far as the LLMC is concerned, the power is confined to making recommendations to the District Level Authorized Committee when an application is received for reclamation of land for constructing a residential building. The LLMC cannot take a decision on their own, not to recommend the same and to reject the application. The proper course open to the LLMC is to put up a report before the District Level Authorized Committee when an application is received, making a recommendation or if they are not inclined to make a recommendation stating the reasons for not recommending the same. A final decision has to be taken by the District Level Authorized Committee after taking note of all the relevant aspects, particularly contained in Sub-Sec. 8 of Sec. 9 of the Act. Therefore, the course adopted by the LLMC in passing the Ext.P10 order, which closes the doors for the petitioner to get an adjudication before the competent authority, is not proper. Therefore, Ext.P10 is to be interfered with.