SREEKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that, even though his property having an extent of 23.10 Ares comprised of in Re-survey No.202/3 of Nedumbassery Village, is a fully converted land remaining as a "garden land", it has been incorrectly included in the Data Bank as a "Paddy Land". He says that, he, therefore, preferred Ext.P2 application before the District Collector under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order) and since it is not being considered, he was constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition. He submits that at the time when this matter was heard by this Court earlier, since it was found that the property was included in the Data Bank and therefore, that Ext.P2 cannot be immediately considered, he, by way of abundant caution, preferred Ext.P3 application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and therefore, prays that the said Committee be directed to consider Ext.P3 and delete the property from the Data Bank and consequentially, that the District Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) be directed to then consider Ext.P2, which he says is still pending, as is evident from Ext.P4 receipt.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader-Sri.Manuraj.K.J, appearing on behalf of official respondents submits that no action could be taken by the District Collector or the RDO on Ext.P2 until now because the property is concededly included in the Data Bank. He says that, therefore, unless Ext.P3 application is allowed by the LLMC, the petitioner cannot seek that his application under the KLU Order be taken up or decided. He says that, in any event of the matter, the petitioner will have to move a fresh application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Act and Wetland Act (Paddy Land Act for short) if he wants any reliefs as regards conversion of the property even if the LLMC finds in his favour.

(3.) When I consider the afore submissions, I find favour with the learned Government Pleader only in part, this is because since the petitioner's property included in the Data Bank certainly Ext.P3 will have to be first considered by the LLMC and only if the said Committee finds his property deserving of being removed from the Data Bank, can the petitioner seek regularisation of its conversion. However, as regards the submission of Sri. Manuraj.K.J., that the petitioner will, subsequent to favourable orders obtained from the LLMC, have to approach the RDO under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, does not find my favour, since Ext.P2 application dated 04.07.2015 was received by the District Collector on 11.08.2015, as is evident from Ext.P4 receipt. Going by the judgment of this Court in Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and another [2019(4)KHC 400], the application will have to be considered only under the provisions of the KLU Order and the petitioner cannot be asked to make a fresh application under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.