Authority to direct land restoration does not lie with subordinate officers under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction calling for all the records leading to Exhibit P6 Notice issued by the 2^nd respondent and Exhibit.P7 Stop Memo issued by the 1^st respondent and quash the original of the same as illegal and opposed to law.

ii. Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P9 reply only after disposal of Exhibit P8 RTI application, within a reasonable time frame to be decided by this Hon’ble Court.

iii. Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction to the 1^st respondent to consider Exhibit P9 reply and to confine the allegation of illegal reclamation by limiting such allegation to the property covered under Exhibit P4 and P4 having an extent of 2.33 Ares in Survey No. 106/1 under TP No. 12841 which alone is shown as ‘നിലം’ (Paddy Land).

iv. To declare that the petitioner has every right to prefer an application in Form 5 and Form 6 under the provisions of Act of 2002 before the appropriate authority to rectify the discrepancy of 2.33 Ares in Survey No. 106/1 under TP No. 12841 which alone is shown as ‘നിലം’ (Paddy Land). "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of 2.40 Ares of land in Survey No.106/3-1 under the 1^st respondent Village, as per Ext.P1 registered deed. Petitioner is remitting the land tax, as evident by Ext.P2 land tax receipt is the further submission. Ext.P3 is the possession certificate. Apart from the above property, the petitioner is also in possession of 2.33 Ares of property in Survey No.106/1 of the 1^st respondent village is the submission. Exhibit P5 is the land tax receipt as far as the second property is concerned. It is submitted that both properties covered under Exts.P1 to P5 are situated near the proposed Attingal Bypass of the proposed National Highway. Petitioner received Ext.P6 notice stating that there is an illegal reclamation of the entire property in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that the details of the property in which such reclamation was undertaken are not specifically mentioned. Subsequent to Ext.P6, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P7, a stop memo raising similar allegations to those raised by the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P6, is the submission. It is the case of the petitioner that the property under Exts.P4 and P5 is wrongly classified as 'nilam' (paddy land). It is the case of the petitioner that the property was converted before 12.05.2008. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that Exts.P6 and P7 orders issued by the respondents to the extent, directing the petitioner to restore the property to its original position is without proper authority, and the Village Officer or the Agricultural Officer has no such power. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that the respondents have no authority to issue a direction to the petitioner to restore the property to the original position. Petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court in Shanawaz Mytheenkunju v. Village Officer, Keerikkad Village [ 2025 (1) KHC 447 ]. I think there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The Village Officer or Agricultural Officer has no authority to direct the petitioner to restore a property to its original position, invoking the powers under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008. Of course, they have the power to issue a stop memo under Section 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 and refer the matter to the District Collecto