The District Collector's decision was not adequately founded on prior court directions and relevant evidence, necessitating a reconsideration.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are stated to be husband and wife. They possess property extending 48.01 Ares in Sy.No.262/9 of Puthanvelikara village. Though the property referred to above was lying as a dry land, the same was originally included in the draft data bank prepared as 'nilam'. The petitioners made an appropriate application seeking the removal of the property from the data bank. According to the petitioners, by Ext.P1 decision dated 31.05.2013, they were informed that a decision was taken by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) to remove the afore property from the data bank. They also obtained a permit for carrying out certain construction in the afore property, and when constructions were being carried out, a stop memo was issued, on account of which the petitioners were before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.11293 of 2016. This Court disposed of the afore writ petition by Ext.P2 judgment, holding that the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the construction for the reasons stated therein. The State sought to review the aforementioned judgment by filing R.P. No.334 of 2016, essentially contending that there was more than one decisions taken by the LLMC. By Ext.P3 order dated 25.07.2016, this Court found that which of the decisions taken by the LLMC is the correct one requires to be decided by the District Collector. Therefore, the review petition is disposed of as under:-

“5. This Court cannot resolve such issues. Which of the data bank is correct has to be decided by the competent authority. If the land in question is a converted land, certainly it is open for the petitioner to approach the District Collector under the Land Utilization Order and seek appropriate reliefs, since Section 3A of Act 28 of 2008 has been abrogated. In such situation, this Court is of the view that the interest of both parties can be protected by relegating the parties to avail the remedies by approaching the District Collector. Accordingly, the following directions are issued :-

(i) The District Collector shall take a decision whether the land is a converted land or not after adverting the data bank and after hearing the petitioner and other officials.

(ii) The petitioner is permitted to put up a boundary wall alongside of the land. However, he shall not reclaim any portion of the land in question without further orders from the District Collector.

(iii) In the event the District Collector finds that the petitioner constructed a boundary wall by violating the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 , it is open for the District Collector to demolish the boundary wall and to restore the land to its original position.

(iv) The District Collector shall take a decision in this regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(v) Till a decision is taken as above, other than construction of the boundary wall, the petitioner shall not reclaim any portion of the land or undertake any construction.”

2. The petitioners further state that with respect to the construction of the godown in the property in question, the Panchayat raised some disputes, and ultimately, by Ext.P4 dated 19.09.2015, the petitioners were permitted to put up a construction having an extent of 220.97 sq. m. with certain conditions stated therein. Even thereafter, the petitioners contend that now they have been served with the order at Ext.P7 dated 14.06.2023, issued by the District Collector, pointing out that the application filed by the petitioners requires to be rejected and further directing the petitioners to remove the constructions already put up in the property in question. It is seeking to challenge the afore that the petitioners are before this Court.

3. I have heard Sri.Peeyus A. Kottam, the learned counsel