The court upheld the Local Level Monitoring Committee's condition for drainage construction as justifiable, emphasizing compliance for non-paddy land use under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

J U D G M E N T

Orders, Exts.P3 and P5, dated 17.06.2013 and 19.06.2013 of the Local Level Monitoring Committee under Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , directing the petitioner to construct a two metres wide drainage from her property to the nearby thodu , while considering her application for using the land for non-paddy purposes, are under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner, who is a resident of Karuvarakkundu in Malappuram District, owns 0.562 hectors of land in survey No.395/7 of the Vazhakkadu village. She is one of the Directors of Al-noor Hospital, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. The hospital has been doing services to the residents by employing highly qualified Doctors. In order to have an oncology centre for cancer patients and a nursing college, project report was prepared and for the purpose of developmental activities, the Company could not get sufficient space near the hospital. The petitioner's property of about 50 cents, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, is situated near the hospital premises and had agreed to provide the above plot for the purpose of developmental activities of the hospital. Since it is low lying land and no paddy cultivation was being done as per the revenue records. An application for the developmental activities of the hospital was submitted to the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The third respondent inspected the premises, conducted an enquiry and filed report dated 18.3.2013 along with a sketch, Ext.P2. Thereafter, the Local Level Monitoring Committee considered the matter and decided to grant permission to the petitioner, subject to provision of a drainage of two metres wide from the property to nearby thodu . Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation for omitting the said condition, which was reiterated vide the impugned order, Ext.P5 also.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the condition of two metres wide drainage facility could not have been imposed as there are properties of others also till the thodu , which was not taken into consideration, much less the Local Level Monitoring Committee could not refer matter to the State Level Committee due to non-compliance of the direction to construct the drainage. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Sri.Justin Jacob, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the Local Level Monitoring Committee as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 has the power to make a call, as and when a request is made for filling up of a low lying area pertaining to the paddy land. On account of non- compliance of the condition imposed in the order for construction of two metres wide drainage, the matter could not be sent to the State Level Committee. The petitioner was not able to place on record any material, i.e. sketch plan or any photograph to show that it was impractical to construct the said drainage and therefore, requested this Court for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

6. No doubt on receipt of the application, the third respondent inspected the premises, made enquiries and filed report dated 18.3.2013 along with a sketch, Ext.P2. The sketch does not envisage that there was any obstruction for the petitioner to construct a two metres wide drainage. If at all there was substance in the arguments, petitioner could have placed on record the site plan contrary to what had been stated in Ext.P2 report accompanied by a sketch plan enabling this Court to form an opinion different from the one arrived at. Owing to the non-compliance of the direction of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the matter could not be referred to the State Level Committee. I am of the view that unless and un