Recommendations must come from the Local Level Monitoring Committee, while approvals are the prerogative of the District Level Authorised Committee under the Act.

JUDGMENT

The case set up in the above W.P.(C.) is as follows :

That the petitioner is in absolute ownership and possession of 2.14 ares of property only, applied for construction of a house which was rejected by Ext.P4 stating that the property is included in the data bank as “nilam” which was against Sec.5(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act . Local Level Monitoring Committee has no power to reject the application and as per Sec.5(3) Local Level Monitoring has to recommend the matter to District Level Authorised Committee and as per Sec.9 District Level Authorised Committee has to consider the application.

It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant W.P.(C.) with the following prayers : “(a) quash Exhibit P4 order of the 1st respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction and declare that Local Level Monitoring Committee has no power to reject the application.

(b) direct the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P3 application without any delay and to recommend it to the 2nd respondent for granting building permission as per Rule 5(3) of Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act (c) direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application under Se.9 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act.

(d) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Smt.C.K.Sherin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Manuraj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. It is urged by the petitioner that in the instant case, the application of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 dated 11.12.2018 for permission to convert the land for constructing residential building and has now been finally rejected by the 1st respondent, Local Level Monitoring Committee as per the impugned Ext.P4 order dated 16.1.2020 without taking into consideration of all relevant aspects of the matter. Apart from this, the main contention urged by Smt. C.K.Sherin, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authority to take a final decision on the said plea is the 2nd respondent District Level authorised committee as can be seen from Sec.9(1) of the Kerala Conservation and Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the function and duty entrusted to with the 1st respondent, Local Level Monitoring Committee is to make recommendation in this regard, as can be seen Sec.5(3) of the abovesaid Act. It is seen that the plea of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 has now been finally rejected as per impugned Ext.P4 order dated 16.01.2020 rendered by the 1st respondent, Local Level Monitoring Committee. Therefore, the impugned Ext.P4 order will require interdiction as the authority vested to take final decision in that matter is the 2nd respondent District Level authorised committee as can be seen from Sec.9(1) of the Act and not the 1st respondent, Local Level Monitoring Committee and that the latter is vested with the function to make recommendations in that matter as can be seen from Sec.5(3) of the Act.

4. Accordingly, the impugned Ext.P5 order will stand quashed and rescinded. Consequently, it is ordered that Ext.P3 application dated 11.12.2018 will stand remitted before the 1st respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee for consideration afresh in the matter of forming an opinion as to the recommendation that they may make to the 2nd respondent, District Level Monitoring Committee. The 1st respondent will conduct appropriate inspection with due prior notice to the petitioner and may also ensure that a copy of the inspection report is given in advance to the petitioner and thereafter, reasonable opportunity of personal hearing should be granted to the petitioner through the authorised representative/counsel , if any and then the 1st respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee should form their