IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8290 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PREEJA.M., `SITHARA', THONNALLOOR VILLAGE, PANDALAM. 2. MAHESWARI.M., KOTTARATHIL RAJAVILASOM, THOTTAMON, RANNI. BY ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. RAVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 8290 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MARCH, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance raised by the petitioners is that even though the petitioners submitted Exhibit P1 application way back on 30.1.2007 for getting permission to reclaim the land owned by them for constructing a residential house, so far the same has not been finalised. It is pointed out that the properties on the three sides of it are reclaimed lands and there is no paddy cultivation in the area. 2. Exhibit P2 is the report of the Village Officer, Pathanamthitta, on the application submitted as per Exhibit P1. Exhibit P3 is the report submitted by the Tahslidar, Kozhencherry. By Exhibit P4 report, the Principal Agricultural Officer reported that the paddy land owned by the petitioners is not suitable for cultivation, since it is surrounded on three sides with reclaimed land and there exist no water drainage facility also. All these reports uniformly reports of these aspects. 3. Even though the petitioners have been contacting the W.P.(C)No.8290/2010 -2- 2nd respondent from time to time, no action has been taken to issue the order. Therefore, the petitioners moved the Complaint Redressal Cell of the Chief Minister as per Exhibit P5. The 2nd respondent pointed out the difficulty in the light of the communication from the Revenue Principal Secretary dated 17.11.2007 prohibiting grant of permission in certain cases. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the said order, permissions were being granted and Exhibits P6 and P7 were relied upon in support of that plea. Finally, the 1st petitioner was given a reply as per Exhibit P8 directing her to approach the Local Monitoring Committee in the matter. This is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for respondents. 5. Evidently, when Exhibit P1 was submitted the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act was not come into force. The Local Monitoring Committee is a statutory body created by the New Act and the Rules therein. 6. So far as the petitioners' claim is concerned, all the enquiries are over, except the recommendation of the Local W.P.(C)No.8290/2010 -3- Monitoring Authority. It is evident that the application is pending from the year 2007 and it is not necessary to file a fresh one. In that view of the matter, since the 2nd respondent is the Chairman of the District Level Monitoring Committee, it is upto the 2nd respondent to place it before the concerned Committee and take an appropriate decision in the matter, after getting a report. 6. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take an appropriate decision on Exhibit P1 after placing the reports already received along with application before the Monitoring Committee and after getting the report expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners will produce a copy of this Writ Petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE dsn