SAFEEYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P1, P3 and P8 orders passed by the District Collector, Local Level Monitoring Committee and the Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department, as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 [for short, 'Act, 2008']. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is the owner of an extent of 26.650 cents of land situate in Survey No.1190/5 of Mulavoor Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Ernakulam District. According to the petitioner, the said property is lying as dry land for the last more than 50 years, though the same is mentioned as 'Nilam' (paddy field) in the revenue records. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the predecessor in interest of the property also cultivated the property with tapioca, plantain etc., as the same was not fit for paddy cultivation. Immediately on the northern side of petitioner's property is a canal bund road, which lies at a height of more than 15 feet. Hence, it is very difficult to enter into the petitioner's property, though a small outer bund is provided. So the petitioner properly maintained the existing outer bund, which is highly essential for cultivation.

(3.) However, the District Collector has passed the order dated 26.08.2014, as per Sec.13 of Act, 2008, wherein, it is stated that, petitioner has converted the land which was fit enough to be cultivated with paddy by dumping soil into the same. It is also found that the action of the petitioner is causing difficulties to the nearby paddy field owners, and thereupon, directed the petitioner to restore the land to its original position. It is the further case of the petitioner that, though the petitioner appeared before the District Collector and submitted her grievances, the District Collector failed to hear the petitioner and also failed to consider the written explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext.P1 is passed by the District Collector in violation of the principles of natural justice, and it is not a speaking order. Thereupon, petitioner has preferred W.P.(C) No.26075 of 2014 before this Court, seeking to quash Ext.P1. As per Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee to pass orders after hearing all the parties, and also taking into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner including the application submitted by the petitioner under Sec.3(2) of Act, 2008.