IMPORTANT POINTS
Merely because the BTR and other records described the property as 'nilam' will not be of any relevance in that regard and the 2nd respondent can proceed further under Sec.13 of the Act only if the abovesaid prime conditions are satisfied regarding the actual state of affairs of the property as on 12.8.2008. If the 2nd respondent gets such objective materials to be satisfied that the subject property fulfils the definition of 'paddy land' as per Sex.2(xii) of the Act or 'wet land' as per Sec.2(xviii) of the Act as on 12.8.2008.

JUDGMENT :

These cases are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment as the main issue arising is the same in these matters. W.P(C).No.4704/2020 is taken as the leading case and the exhibits and respondents' status will be described mainly in terms of that Writ Petition unless otherwise indicated.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.4704/2020 has been selected as LPG distributor by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. He had taken the property in Re.Sy.No.97/11 and 97/12-1 of Kadapra Village belongs to the 5th respondent on lease for a period of 15 years and is in possession of the same. The petitioner has obtained building permit from the Panchayath concerned and has completed the construction and has obtained the requisite clearance from the authorities concerned for the running of the LPG distribution centre and had also tentatively fixed the inauguration of the said centre and the first load of the cylinders was to reach the godown on 20.2.2020. In order to reach the godown, the petitioner is using a road through Re.Sy.No.97/12 and the same was in existence for the past more than 40-45 years and the said road has also been used by the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.4216/2020 as well for reaching her house. Exts.P-4 & P-6 are the draft data bank documents which would show that the said road and surrounding properties are noted as 'purayidam' (residential property). Ext.P-5 is the certificate dated 16.7.2019 issued by none other than the Village Officer concerned, wherein it is clearly certified that the said pathway/road is going through the purayidam mentioned in the abovesaid draft data bank. That due to rivalry, the 6th respondent has preferred a false complaint to the 2nd respondent-District Collector, without impleading the petitioners in these cases as well as nearby residents as respondents, who are all beneficiaries of the alleged road. The 6th respondent has raised a factually wrong complaint alleging that the property through which the pathway is lying is a paddy land or wet land and that it has been unauthorisedly filled up by the 5th respondent and that action should be taken under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and to direct the 5th respondent to reconvert the said property as paddy land, etc. Since the property has been given on lease by the 5th respondent to the petitioner and since the pathway lying through the said subject property is mainly used by the petitioners and nearby residents, the persons who are directly affected by any decision on the said complaint was persons like the petitioners. That without impleading the petitioners herein in the said proceedings and without conducting any inspection with due prior notice to the petitioner and without giving copies of such inspection reports, if any, to the petitioners as well as 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent-RDO has passed impugned Ext.P-8 order dated 29.1.2020 inter alia directing that the subject property mentioned therein should be reconverted as paddy land purportedly in exercise of the powers under Sec.13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. One of the prime contentions raised in these matters is that after the amendment made to Sec.13 of the 2008 Act with effect from 30.12.2017, the only power under Sec.13 for directing reconversion of the property can be exercised only by the District Collector of the District concerned and not by an officer like the 3rd respondent, who is subordinate to the 2nd respondent-District Collector. The 3rd respondent-RDO has taken the stand that since the 2nd respondent has proceeded on leave and since the 3rd respondent-RDO has been given full additional charge of the post of District Collector, the 3rd respondent-RDO is competent to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P-8.

3. The petitioner in W.P(C).No.4704/2020 has subsequently filed the aforesaid W.P(C).No. 6487/2020 stating that in view of the issuance of the abovesaid Ext.P-8 order, t