ABDUL HAMEED KHAN Vs. MUHAMMED ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar appearing for the appellant, who is the petitioner in WP.(C).Nos.19584/18 & 12669/18 and the respondent No.7 in the W.P(C).20657/18). Also heard Sri.Harish Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 in W.A.2054/18, who are the petitioners in W.P(C).20657/18.

(2.) The issue to be considered in these cases is whether the land comprised in Survey No.215 of the Thrithala Village in Palakkad district, is to be categorized as paddy land, under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and if so, the extent of land which is to be categorized as such. Under the impugned judgment dated 27.9.2018, the learned single Judge has quashed the Exts.P11 and P12, viz., the report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and consequential gazette notification, which was to the effect that in Survey No.215, only 197 cents of land is to be retained as paddy land and the balance 326 cents should be deleted from the status of paddy land. The said decision is taken despite the dissenting note of the Village Officer, who opined that only 1.50 Acres could be permitted to be converted, out of the total extent of 5.23 Acres of land comprised in the Survey No.215.

(3.) In course of the present proceeding, on 30.10.2018, the Agricultural Officer, Thrithala Grama Panchayat was ordered by this court to visit the area and submit a report, after taking into account all relevant materials which may be available, throwing light on the nature and lie of the land as on the relevant date, i.e., 12.8.2008 as also the currently prevailing nature and lie of the land. The Agricultural Officer was also asked to indicate whether, as on today, the land can be utilized for the purpose of paddy cultivation.