SHIBU P.M. Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner states that he is the owner of three extents of land, comprising of 4.36 Ares in Re-Survey No.129/4-11-2, 4.05 Ares in Re-Survey No.129/5-4-2 and 4.05 Ares in Re-Survey No.129/5-2-2 of Malayattoor Village, which have been reclaimed several years ago, much prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ("The Paddy Land Act" for short), and that they have been included as a "purayidam" in the Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee ("LLMC" for short) under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act, as is evident from Ext.P2.

(2.) The petitioner says that normally, therefore, he was entitled to obtain necessary orders under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, but that when he approached the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer ("RDO" for short) for such purpose, he was advised by the said office to first file an application under Section 5(4) of the Paddy Land Act to have his property removed from the Data Bank. The petitioner says that this was completely unnecessary, but presumably, being guided by the wrong advice, that such an application was made, as is clear from Ext.P4, along with an application under Section 27A, namely Ext.P3.

(3.) The petitioner asserts that the RDO ought to have merely allowed these two applications, because his properties have been shown to be a 'purayidam" in the Data Bank; but that instead of doing so, he has now issued Ext.P7 order allowing the application, preferred under Section 5(4) of the Paddy Land Act, only partially with respect to 4.88 Ares, but holding that 3.22 Ares out of it cannot be excluded from the Data Bank. The petitioner says that based on Ext.P7, the RDO has issued Ext.P8 order granting permission for conversion of only 4.88 Ares under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act and rejecting permission for rest of the Properties.