Devassykutty A.M. vs The District Collector and Shri Mohanan V.R.

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The appellant is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P10 order passed by the District Collector under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') on the basis of the report stated as obtained pointing out that the appellant has already converted the nature and utility of the said land, contrary to the provisions of law.

The case projected by the appellant is that no notice whatsoever was issued to the appellant to substantiate the actual facts and figures and that Ext.P10 order was passed behind his back. It is also contended that the change with regard to the nature of the land was effected much prior to the coming into force of the above Act, which is taken note of by the District Collector as well. However, referring to the alleged submission stated as made by the appellant on 29.7.2010, a positive order was passed by the District Collector directing the appellant to restore the land/nilam to its previous position within 21 days and report the matter to the concerned Tahsildar, lest adverse consequences should follow, which in turn was under challenge in the writ petition.

The learned Single Judge of this Court declined interference holding that Ext.P10 order was a revisable one u/s 28 of the Act and that the discretionary jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India did not require to be invoked to redress the grievance of the appellant.

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. Normally, this Court would not have gone any further in view of the observation made by the learned Single Judge referring to the alternative remedy available to the appellant. But on going through the materials on record, it is seen that the concerned Agricultural Officer had reported that the land was filled up and plantains were planted by the appellant in the concerned land even before the coming into force of the Act and that if the plantains are uprooted, it could again be used for paddy cultivation. If this be so, the allegation that the land/nilam stated was converted by the appellant contrary to the provisions of the ''Act'' cannnot subsist as now projected in Ext.P10.

There is also a specific case for the appellant that he had not preferred any such application dated 29.7.2010 as referred to in Ext.P10. The version now offered from the part of the respondents is that, it was an ''oral submission''. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the first respondent is ready and willing to reconsider the matter, giving an effective opportunity to the appellant, so as to bring out the true state of affairs.

In the above circumstances, we do not propose to go into the merits of the case. So as to facilitate reconsideration of the matter as above, Ext.P10 order passed by the first respondent is set aside and the first respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and all concerned, which exercise shall be pursued and finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ appeal is disposed of as above.