This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee in exercise of the power under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 28 of 2008”).
2. The party respondents have approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.24568/2012 against the writ petitioner herein when the writ petitioner herein attempted to convert 6.33 acres of land. It appears that the District Collector has passed an order allowing the writ petitioner herein to convert the land in question. The order passed by the District Collector was quashed with liberty to the writ petitioner herein to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee.
3. The writ petitioner herein challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge in the above writ petition by filing Writ Appeal W.P.(C) No.17610 of 2014 2 No.1233/2013. The Division Bench of this Court affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge and directed the writ petitioner to establish before the Local Level Monitoring Committee regarding the nature of the land in question, which is included in the draft data bank. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The Local Level Monitoring Committee passed Ext.P9 order refusing to correct the details in the draft data bank wherein the property is classified as wet land. It is challenging the above order, this writ petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this property cannot be treated as wet land going by the definition of the wet land. The learned counsel also referred to the report on local inspection of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court and submits that this property is a reclaimed paddy land. However, the learned counsel for the party respondents points out that earlier report made by the Advocate Commissioner and also a report prepared by Dr.V.S.Vijayan, Salim Ali foundation and W.P.(C) No.17610 of 2014 3 submits that this land including neighbouring land are wet lands. According to the learned counsel for the respondents this property is a wet land and part of larger wet land eco-system.
5. I am of the view, Ext.P9 is not a speaking order. The Local Level Monitoring Committee had not adverted into various aspects to classify the land in question as wet land. The Act 28 of 2008 refers wet land with reference to various types of land. Therefore, there must be a specific finding on the type of the land in question within the definition referred as wet land. Therefore, Ext.P9 is set aside.
I am also of the view that the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam shall conduct inspection along with the Local Level Monitoring Committee and shall find out whether the property can be treated as wet land. The team of inspection led by the Principal Agricultural Officer shall also advert to the Commissioner's reports filed before this Court in this matter and also on an earlier occasion before taking a final decision. The team also shall advert to the definition of wet land and paddy land in terms of the Act 28 of W.P.(C) No.17610 of 2014 4 2008. Needful shall be done within a period of two months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the party respondents.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln