1. Question raised for a decision in these proceedings at the instance of the accused is whether in the absence of the notification contemplated under Sec.5(4)(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, "the Act") a person who converts paddy land/wet land could be prosecuted under Sec.23 of the said Act?.

2. Petitioners own paddy lands within the local jurisdiction of jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna. The said officer preferred complaints before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri alleging that petitioners in violation of the prohibition contained in Sec.3 of the Act converted their paddy lands and hence are liable to be punished under Sec.23 of the said Act. Annexure-B in these proceedings are copy of those complaints. Based on those complaints learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the said offence, filed C.C.Nos.19 to 22 and 34 of 2010 and issued process to the petitioners. Petitioners have approached this Court to quash proceedings against them contending that at the time paddy lands were allegedly converted, no notification had been published as required under Sec.5(4)(i) of the Act and hence whatever may be the power of the Government for reconversion of the land as provided under the Act, a prosecution would not lie against petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners have referred me to the relevant provisions of the Act and placed reliance on the decision of this Court Kaipadath Property Development Company (P) Ltd Vs. State of Kerala (2011(1) KLT 526) where it is observed in paragraph 42 that the notification (under Sec.5(4)(i) of the Act) will be a condition precedent for the applicability of certain provisions of the Act.

3. Replying to the averments in the petitions, the first respondent has sworn a counter affidavit in Crl.M.C.No.4915 of 2010. Learned Public Prosecutor requested that the same may be read in answer to the allegations in the other petitions as well. In the counter affidavit, apart from averring that petitioners have converted their paddy lands in violation of Sec.3 of the Act it is stated that the Act came inot force with effect from August 12, 2008, a local monitoring committee was constituted as required under Sec.5 (4)(i) of the Act on December 14, 2010 vide order No.B4-49519/08 of the District Collector, Malappuram and that Data bank was prepared by the monitoring committee and published on September 30, 2010 in Kalikavu Grama Panchayath and Vellayur Village (within the limits of which admittedly the lands in question come). In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit it is contended that after commencement of the Act, (ie from August 12, 2008 onwards) conversion of paddy land to dry land is totally prohibited and from the date of commencement of the Act onwards the first respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer being the authorised officer is competent to lodge complaint in the Criminal Court against persons who convert paddy lands without permission as per provisions of the Act. It is therefore contended that initiation of prosecution against petitioners is valid and is not required to be interfered. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also in the matter. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out the laudable object behind enactment of the Act and the object it is intended to achieve by making stringent provisions in the Act including penal provisions. Learned Public Prosecutor wanted me to bear in mind the said aspects while interpreting the relevant provisions of the Act to hold whether the complaints are maintainable.

4. No doubt the Act has a laudable object as is revealed from its preamble. It is stated that the Act is made to conserve paddy land and wet land and restrict conversion or reclamation thereof, in order to promote agricultural growth, to ensure food security and to sustain the ecological system in the State of Kerala. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act states that there h