PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kozhikode in C.M.A No.27 of 2016 wherein, the order dated 15-04-2016 passed by the District Collector, Kozhikode (produced as Ext.P1) was challenged. The petitioner is the owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL 11/AT 9804. The vehicle was taken into custody by the Special Squard of the Revenue Department on 13-06-2015 on the ground that it was used for unauthorizedly filling up paddy field, belonging to one Bindu, situated in Survey No.302/3 of Chevayur Village. It is submitted that Bindu is having ownership over a paddy field admeasuring less that 5 cents. Therefore, she is entitled to fill up the paddy field as per the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ( herein after 'the Act' for short). She entrusted the petitioner to put earth, by using the lorry, for the purpose of filling up the paddy filed. It is the case that Bindu had applied before Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under Section 5 of the Act for getting permission to fill up the land. Ext.P5 is the recommendation by the Field officer, Kozhikode Krishi Bhavan recommending to the District Collector that Bindu is entitled to fill up the land. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the District Collector contrary to the provisions of the Act passed Ext.P1 order without issuing any notice to the petitioner and also without hearing him. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector, the petitioner approached the learned Additional District Judge under Section 21 of the Act. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal finding that there was no merit.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P1 order passed by the District Collector is per se illegal. He has not complied with the procedure contemplated under the Act. It is seen from Ext.P5 that applicant Bindhu was eligible to convert paddy field as per the provisions of the Act. The Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under Section 5 of the Act, instead of forwarding their recommendation to the District Level Authorized Committee constituted under Section 9 of the Act, forwarded the recommendation directly to the District Collector. That is a grave irregularity in the procedure adopted. The District Collector acted in violation of the powers conferred on him and the District Level Authorized Committee and passed Ext.P1 order. It is clear that no notice was issued to the petitioner before ordering confiscation of the vehicle. The irregularity in the procedure and the illegality in the order passed by the District Collector was not noticed by the learned Additional District Judge. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that Ext.P1 order is not legally sustainable.