Petitioners challenge Ext.P2, an order passed by the District Collector under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Petitioners are the owners in possession of an extent of 75 cents of property in Survey No.563/15 of Koothattukulam village. The 4th respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioners before the 2nd respondent inter alia stating that there was an attempt on the part of the petitioners to convert the paddy field into dry land which was causing obstruction to the agricultural operation to the neighbouring lands owned by them. An enquiry was conducted and the revenue authorities opined that the area in question was cultivated with paddy for the last few years and that the property was described as paddy field in the draft data bank entries prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee. That apart, it was reported that the reclamation in the area in question was obstructing the cultivation of other paddy field in the area and it is difficult to take agricultural equipments and vehicle to the neighbouring paddy field as well. Under these circumstances, after conducting a detailed enquiry in the matter, the District Collector had called upon the petitioners to restore the land to the original position. Against the order passed by the District Collector at Ext.P2, a revision is filed before the Government which resulted in Ext.P6 order.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 5th respondent inter alia reiterating the findings made by the District Collector at Ext.P2.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in a suit filed by the 1st petitioner before the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and it is inter alia stated in the Commissioner’s report that the plaint schedule property and the nearby paddy fields are seen reclaimed about 15 years back as a garden land. The said report cannot be taken as material evidence to consider the validity or otherwise of Ext.P6 order since it is for the Civil court in that case to consider whether the Commission report could be accepted and treated as evidence in the case. Therefore, since the veracity of the said report is pending consideration by the Civil court, it may not be possible for this Court to rely upon it and come to a different finding than what has been stated by the revenue authorities and the District Collector in terms of Ext.P6.
Since the petitioners were heard in the matter and when it is an admitted fact that the properties are included in the draft data bank entries as paddy field, there was no illegality on the part of the District Collector to have formed an opinion in terms of Ext.P2. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and hence the same is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr jsr