IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8290 of 2010(I)
1. PREEJA.M., `SITHARA',
... Petitioner
2. MAHESWARI.M., KOTTARATHIL RAJAVILASOM,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. RAVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :15/03/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 8290 OF 2010
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MARCH, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The grievance raised by the petitioners is that even though
the petitioners submitted Exhibit P1 application way back on
30.1.2007 for getting permission to reclaim the land owned by
them for constructing a residential house, so far the same has
not been finalised. It is pointed out that the properties on the
three sides of it are reclaimed lands and there is no paddy
cultivation in the area.
2. Exhibit P2 is the report of the Village Officer,
Pathanamthitta, on the application submitted as per Exhibit P1.
Exhibit P3 is the report submitted by the Tahslidar,
Kozhencherry. By Exhibit P4 report, the Principal Agricultural
Officer reported that the paddy land owned by the petitioners is
not suitable for cultivation, since it is surrounded on three sides
with reclaimed land and there exist no water drainage facility
also. All these reports uniformly reports of these aspects.
3. Even though the petitioners have been contacting the
W.P.(C)No.8290/2010 -2-
2nd respondent from time to time, no action has been taken to
issue the order. Therefore, the petitioners moved the Complaint
Redressal Cell of the Chief Minister as per Exhibit P5. The 2nd
respondent pointed out the difficulty in the light of the
communication from the Revenue Principal Secretary dated
17.11.2007 prohibiting grant of permission in certain cases. It is
the case of the petitioners that in spite of the said order,
permissions were being granted and Exhibits P6 and P7 were
relied upon in support of that plea. Finally, the 1st petitioner was
given a reply as per Exhibit P8 directing her to approach the Local
Monitoring Committee in the matter. This is under challenge in
this Writ Petition.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for respondents.
5. Evidently, when Exhibit P1 was submitted the Conservation
of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act was not come into force. The
Local Monitoring Committee is a statutory body created by the
New Act and the Rules therein.
6. So far as the petitioners’ claim is concerned, all the
enquiries are over, except the recommendation of the Local
W.P.(C)No.8290/2010 -3-
Monitoring Authority. It is evident that the application is pending
from the year 2007 and it is not necessary to file a fresh one. In
that view of the matter, since the 2nd respondent is the Chairman
of the District Level Monitoring Committee, it is upto the 2nd
respondent to place it before the concerned Committee and take
an appropriate decision in the matter, after getting a report.
6. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 2nd
respondent to take an appropriate decision on Exhibit P1 after
placing the reports already received along with application
before the Monitoring Committee and after getting the report
expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months from the
date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners
will produce a copy of this Writ Petition along with a copy of this
judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE
dsn