Ext.P5 prohibitory order issued by the first respondent is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Petitioner is an organisation of persons belonging to Pulaya Community. Ext.P5 order was served on the Secretary of the organisation. Ext.P5 order is in the nature of a show-cause notice, directing the petitioner to appear before the first respondent on 19.09.2014 and show-cause in writing why action should not be initiated against the petitioner for contravening the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.
3. Ext.P5 order recites that it has come to the notice of the first respondent that the petitioner organisation, which is in possession of the land in Re-Sy No.34/13 of Block No.7 of Nayarambalam Village, is contravening the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, without prior sanction of the District Collector / Revenue Divisional Officer.
4. According to the petitioner, they have purchased 6.04 Ares of property in Re-Sy No.B.7-34/13 in the year 2005 for constructing a building for the organisation and that the property purchased by them is neither a paddy field nor a wetland. Ext.P1 is a letter addressed to the first respondent by the Agricultural Officer concerned. Ext.P1 letter indicates that the land purchased by the petitioner is a land used as a pit for decaying coconut husk for about 60 years and that there are coconut trees aged more than 10 years in the property. Ext.P4 (a) is a report forwarded by the Village Officer concerned to the first respondent in respect of the property of the petitioner. It is evident from Ext.P4 (a) that the property purchased by the petitioner is not a property included in the Data Bank prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet Land Act, 2008.
5. The question whether the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order or Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 would attract in a situation of this nature, is a matter for the first respondent to consider. It is stated in the writ petition that pursuant to Ext.P5 order, though the representatives of the petitioner appeared in the office of the first respondent, the Superintendent attached to the first respondent informed them that they can hand over their objections in the office and the decision of the first respondent will be communicated to them. According to the petitioner, Ext.P6 reply to Ext.P5 order/show- cause notice, in the circumstances, was handed over in the office of the first respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner organisation has been sanctioned a grant by the District Panchayath for construction of the building proposed in the property and if the construction cannot be carried out expeditiously, they may not be able to avail the grant sanctioned to them.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6 reply submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P5 show-cause notice and take a final decision in the matter expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording to the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing. Petitioner is free to produce a certified copy of this judgment for compliance before the first respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JV JUDGE