IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35872 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DR.SURJITH, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, KILLIKULANGARA HOUSE, KOOLIMUTTAM P.O., THRISSUR. BY SRI. P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLIVATTOM, THRISSUR.PIN- 680 124. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.PIN- 680 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.PIN- 680 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SPECIAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN- 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35872 of 2010 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of 6.2 acres of land in survey No.407, 406/1, 2, 3, 6 in Vallivattom village of Mukundapuram Taluk. According to the petitioner, while he was attempting to make land suitable for fish farming, he was issued Ext.P4 stop memo, which was followed by Ext.P5 hearing notice. He filed Ext.P6 objection and that, pursuant to Ext.P7 directions of this Court, he was heard by the second respondent. The second respondent, thereafter, issued Ext.P9 order, directing that since Act 28 of 2008 has come into force, for conversion of the land, petitioner should move before the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Act. It is on receipt of Ext.P9, this writ petition is filed, challenging the said order. 2. Although various contentions are raised by the petitioner, which were contradicted by the learned Government Pleader, I am inclined to think that Act 28 of 2008 will apply to a land, only if it is either a paddy land or a W.P.(C) No.35872/10 : 2 : wet land. In Ext.P9 order, although the petitioner has been relegated to seek remedies under the said Act, there is no specific finding that the land is either a paddy land or a wet land, which is a condition precedent for seeking remedies under the Act. In the absence of such a finding, I cannot sustain Ext.P9. 3. In the result, I quash Ext.P9 and direct the second respondent to reconsider the matter as directed in Ext.P7 judgment with notice to the petitioner and, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that in the meanwhile, Ext.P4 stop memo will remain in force. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before the second respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge