1. The writ petition concerns an order passed by the District Collector, viz. Ext.P6. whereby the petitioner was directed to remove the entire earth or any other material used for converting the wet land and to restore the land to its original position and to make it fit for paddy cultivation. Important questions have been raised regarding the interpretation of Kerala Conversation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and Rules, 2008.

2. The brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are the following: The petitioner is a private limited company represented by its Managing Director through his power of attorney holder. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner company purchased as per Ext.P1 sale deed No.2938/2007 of SRO, Thrissur, an extent of 22 acres and 77.700 cents of land in Sy Nos.309/p, 311/1 and 312/1 in Koorkancherry Village and certain properties in Aranattukara Village. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had obtained permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for conversion of the land into paramba as per Exts.P2, P3 as well as Exts.P9 and P10 orders. It is pointed out that even in the sale deed it is recited that the property covered by it is partially reclaimed on the basis of the sanction orders. Nearby people were using it for dumping waste materials for the last 15-20 years.

3. Ext.P4 is a notice issued by the District Collector under the Act alleging illegal conversion of paddy land comprised in Sy. Nos.309/p, 311/1, 312/1 and 313/1 of Koorkancherry Village and Ext.P5 is the objection filed by the petitioner. Finally, by rejecting the contentions, Ext.P6 order has been passed.

4. The District Collector, while overruling the contentions of the petitioner, stated that the illegal action of the petitioner to convert the property was complained of by one Shri K. Baby and Shri V.S. Sunilkumar M.L.A. The reports of the Agricultural Officer the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, have also been relied upon in the order. It is the finding of the District Collector that there was no conversion from 1994 till 2007, the date of purchase of the property as evident from the statement of the predecessor in interest. The attempt made by the petitioner in the year 2008 led to the issuance of a show cause notice and a stop memo and again after the coming into force of the Act, 2008 an attempt was made to covert the land which led to Ext.P6 order. The findings of the District Collector in Ext.P6 in a nutshell, are that the land involved is "Kole land", a wet land used for paddy cultivation. These lands are declared as Ramsar sites which need conservation and there is total prohibition on reclamation of such wet land, under the Act. All orders issued under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order have become inoperative after the coming into force of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. The unauthorized conversion is after the coming into force of the Act and therefore the action is purely illegal and the property is liable to be restored to its original position, and to make it fit for paddy cultivation.

5. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri M.K. Damodaran, for the petitioner and Shri Ranjith Thampan, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Shri Damodaran mainly contended that the provisions of the Act have not been implemented as the Local Level Monitoring Committee is yet to be formed and hence the identification and earmarking of properties as 'paddy land' and 'wet land' is yet to take place. Referring to the various provisions of the Act, it is further pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that a notification in terms of Section 5(4) of the Act and Rules is essential for various authorities to initiate any proceedings under the Act and hence in the absence of such a notification the District Collector was acting in the matter illegally and without jurisdiction.