JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed mainly challenging Ext.P13 order passed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 22.5 cents of land in Survey No. 157/1, 157/2 and 164/5 of Vadakkumkara Village in Thrissur District, which she obtained as per registered sale deed. As per Ext.P1, 10 cents of land is situated in Survey No.157/1, 6 cents of land in Survey No.157/2 and 6.56 cents of land situated in Survey No.164/5. According to the petitioner, the entire 22.5 cents are lying as a compact plot. As on the date of Ext.P1 deed, ie, before the commencement of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act, 2008') 10 cents of land out of 22.5 cents on the eastern side is lying as 'paramba' and the balance land is lying as 'chira' and 'nilam'. The petitioner is not having any other land other than Ext .P1 land and she is not also having any residential house. The petitioner submitted an application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee under Sec.5(3)(1) of the Act, 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid 10 cents of land was not a nilam on the commencement of the Act, 2008, and it is a paramba as evident from Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, there was no necessity for filing an application under Sec.5(3) for permission to fill up the land for an extent of 4.04 ares for construction of a residential house. It is the case of the petitioner that she had filed the said application which was dismissed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee for reasons best known to them. The petitioner attempted to file an appeal before the District Collector. The said appeal was also dismissed.

2. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent had obtained a report from the KSREC regarding petitioner's property as evident by Ext.P5. As per Ext.P5 report, the KSREC has stated that on the southern part of the petitioner's property, there is thick vegetation with scattered settlement much prior to 2008 and on the northern portion, it is found to have agricultural practice. Thus according to the petitioner, as can be seen from Ext.P5, it is absolutely clear that at least on the southern side of the petitioner's property, it is thick vegetation and scattered settlement prior to 2007. According to the petitioner, this tallying with the recitals in Ext.P1 sale deed, which says that on the southern portion, 10 cents is paramba. Moreover, it is also submitted that as per Ext.P1, it is clear that northern portion is not paddy land, but a chira and thodu, where coconut cultivation is being conducted. But it is the case of the petitioner that without considering the aforesaid report, the Local Level Monitoring Committee had decided to notify the entire 22.5 cents as paddy land in the final databank. Inclusion of 4.05 ares of land in Sy.No. 157/1, which is Sl.No.246 in Ext.P6 is illegal according to the petitioner and it is against Ext.P5 report of the KSREC.

3. The petitioner filed Form 5 application before the 1st respondent to remove the land in Sy. No. 157/1 from the data bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer had directed the Agricultural Officer, Vellangallur to file a report. The Local Level Monitoring Committee had filed a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the earlier report of Local Level Monitoring Committee is valid. According to the petitioner, as a matter of fact, as per Rule 4(d),(e) and (f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, the Local Level Monitoring Committee has no role to file any report. But it is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of Ext. P11 and on the basis of the earlier rejection of the petitioner's application, which was confirmed by the District Collector, the 1st respondent has now issued Ext.P13 order rejecting the application. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Heard Senior counsel Adv.Sri.Ranjith Thampan as instructed by Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. I also heard the learned Government