IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34181 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SHAMSUDHEEN KUNJU, VALIYAVEETTIL, KUNNIKODE MURIYIL, VILAKUDDI VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, VILAKUDI, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM. 4. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTAPURAM. BY GOVT PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.34181 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be an owner in possession of 20.23 ares of land in Sy.No.353/32/1 of Vilakkudy village. Though the property is described as a paddy field, according to the petitioner, there has been no cultivation therein for the past many years. Petitioner submitted an application before the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer invoking the powers of the latter, seeking permission to fill up the land with earth. While the petitioner proceeded to construct a compound wall, by Exhibit P2 order the Village Officer issued an order restraining the petitioner from undertaking any construction therein. Petitioner approached this Court challenging Exhibit P2, in WPC No.25572 of 2008. The same was disposed of under Exhibit P3 judgment requiring the 2nd respondent to pass final orders on Exhibit P1 application. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer and produced W.P ( C) No.34181 of 2008 2 the documents, which according to him, showed that the land was not a paddy field. But he received Exhibit P5 communication from the RDO stating that he is not in a position to consider any application for conversion of any paddy field in view of an interdiction by the Revenue Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. 3. Conversion of paddy field is now governed by the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Act, 2008. But the said act contemplates a Local Level Monitoring committee and State Level Committee. 4. Paddy lands and wet lands are defined in the Act. If the land is not a paddy land, nevertheless, the land Utilisation order still would be applicable. But a citizen has a right to get a consideration of his application either under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Act, 2008 or the Land Utilisation Act as case may be. His application cannot kept in cold storage citing the alleged interdiction by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. Petitioner invokes statutory powers of the W.P ( C) No.34181 of 2008 3 RDO and exercise of the same cannot be kept in abeyance. 5. Learned Government Pleader points out that the Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Act is comparatively a new legislation. The committees contemplated by the said Act are yet to be constituted. No doubt the Act provides for the constitution of Local Area Committee. But delay in the constitution of the committees cannot derogate from the enforcement of the Act. I also take note of the fact that Land Utilization Order remains intact. In such circumstances, it is always open to the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to keep in mind the provisions in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Act, 2008 also and then deal with the application filed before the RDO invoking the powers under the Land Utilisation Order. This shall be done in the present case within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.34181 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.34181 of 2008 5