K.M. Joseph, J Appellant is the writ petitioner. According to him, he is the owner in possession of an extent of 203/4 cents of land under Ext.P1 and Ext.P2. It is his further case that the said land had ceased to be a cultivable paddy land for at least two decades. He approached the Revenue Authorities in order to avoid any further objection or obstruction from the Revenue Authorities or any other department as regards conversion of the land or its utilisation for any other purpose. He made a representation to the RDO, Palakkad in the circumstances where he was selected for the dealership of a retail outlet at Alathur town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. He was also advised to make an application simultaneously under Act 28 of 2008 as it was understood that the land in question was included in the Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee. He accordingly alleged that he made such an application form along with recommendation of the second respondent. Thereupon, the RDO issued a communication to the Tahsildar to report about the present status of the land. The Tahsildar reported that there is no cultivation for 11/2 decades and it is a dry land with a shed and There is a compound wall close to the road. The State Level Committee by Ext.P9 rejected the application, stating that there is no public interest involved. 2. Learned single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition by setting the petitioner at liberty to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee (5th respondent) by filing necessary application within two weeks and in which case the application to be considered by the Convener, Local Level Monitoring Committee and appropriate orders be passed after conducting spot inspection ad perusing the records. It was further made clear that the petitioner will be free to approach the RDO on the basis of the proceedings for getting appropriate orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and if any application is filed, it is also to be considered within six weeks thereafter by the third respondent. Feeing aggrieved, the appellant is before us.
3. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the land in question was not a paddy land when Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 came into force. The Writ Petition was filed challenging Ext.P9. According to him, when it came up with that challenge, learned single Judge directed him to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee. As far as Local Level Monitoring Committee is concerned, relegating the appellant to the said Committee would involve the Committee being asked to do something which is beyond its jurisdiction, since the Act does not apply to the land of the appellant as it was not a paddy land or wet land when the Act came into force, the Committee would have no jurisdiction at all.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader would draw our attention to the judgment of learned Single Judge reported in Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2014 (1) KLT 774] as also judgment of another learned single Judge in Casstlerock Projects and Developers 2010(3) KLT 545. It is also pointed out that it is a case where an order was obtained under the Land Utilisation Order for conversion in respect of five cents and therefore, if the appellant has any complaint regarding the classification in the Data Bank, he has to go to the Local Level Monitoring Committee which is what is ordered by the learned Single Judge. There is no room for any complaint made out.
6. We notice that section 5 of the Act provides for constitution of a Local Level Monitoring Committee. Section 4(4) provides for various functions of the Committee inter alia including details of cultivable paddy land and Wet Land. The Committee has included the land of the appellant in the Data Bank but appellant contends that the Act itself is not applicable and therefore the Committee would have no jurisdiction. We would have to embark on a fact finding mission to decide whether the jurisdictional fact has been wrongly found by the authority. We would think that the fact itself being disputed, it is not a matter which is to be decided by this Court.
7. Once the Act came into force and once the Committee has commenced discharging its functions regarding the data bank and the land of the appellant is included, having regard to the words used in section 4(4), it raises a presumption that the land has been included on the basis that they are either cultivable land or wet land. It may be true that the appellant has a case that classification is wrong. If the classification is wrong, there is a remedy to approach the same body and furnish the details available with the appellant to show that the classification is wrongly done. That is precisely what the learned Single Judge ordered in the Writ Petition. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere in the writ appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
We further make it clear that we leave open the challenge to Ext.P9. We extend the time for making the application as 15 days from today.
Sou.
Sd/-
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
// True copy //