The petitioner has approached this Court complaining about the alleged reclamation of paddy land covered by Ext.P1 by respondents 7 and 8. 2. According to the petitioner, the property in issue is paddy land as per the draft data bank entry prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee as per the provisions of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.
3. A report has been called for by this Court from the concerned Tahsildar as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer, who also reported that as per the data bank particulars available in the locality the property is described as paddy land. However it is stated that there are ten coconut trees, one 'Anjily' tree and two 'Vattamaram'. It is also reported by the Village Officer that the northern side of the land was reclaimed for five meters width from the side of tar road 10 years before.
4. A report is also filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on W.P.C.No.28744 OF 2013 2 similar lines.
5. Counter affidavit is filed by the party respondents 7 and 8, inter alia, contending that the petitioner is only a name lender. He has no interest in the property, whereas he is the person engaged by another real estate dealer in the locality. That apart, the respondents submit that they have no intention to reclaim the existing nature of the property, where as, they have only applied for permission from the local authority to construct compound wall in respect of the property.
6. Having regard to these submissions, it is clear that the part of the property in question is paddy land as per the data bank particulars available in the locality. If the party respondents wants to seek any modification in the data bank particulars, it will always be open for them to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee if the data bank entries has not become final. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has not produced any material to show as to how he is interested in the matter. Though it is a disputed question, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has raised a legal contention, I do not W.P.C.No.28744 OF 2013 3 think that this writ petition can be dismissed on the ground that the the petitioner has no locus standi.
7. In this aforesaid circumstances and the materials available from the report filed by Tahsildar as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:
The party respondents 6 and 7 are at liberty to approach competent authorities for changing the data bank entries, if necessary, or to construct any compound wall. But it is made clear that they shall not make any reclamation of the present position of the land without permission from the appropriate authorities.
Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE