Swapna Chandra Bose v. The District Collector, Thrissur and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SWAPNA CHANDRA BOSE, THOTTUPURA HOUSE, KANJANI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN680612.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| |---|---| ||**THRISSUR, PIN-680601.**| |**2**|**THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**THRISSUR, PIN-686601.**| |**3**|**THE CONVENOR,**| ||**(AGRICULTURAL OFFICER), LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING**| ||**COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN, MANALUR,**| ||**KANDASSAMKADAVU.P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680613.**| |**4**|**NIDHI.K.B.,**| ||**THOTTUPURA HOUSE, KANJANI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-**| ||**680612.**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **2** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** **----------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 10575 of 2020 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of June, 2020** ## **JUDGMENT** The case set up in the W.P.(C.) is as follows : That the husband of the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 30 cents of property. A pond is located in the property allotted to him. The 3[rd] respondent, who has been in enemical terms with the husband of the petitioner, has been staking claim over the pond and the Motor shed. The husband of the petitioner moved a suit OS No.2632/2013 before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur for fixation of boundary in respect of the property bequeathed to him by his father. In the suit an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he filed a report dated 15.9.2017. It is evident from Ext.P2 that the pond in question is located in the property of petitioner’s husband. That she received a notice issued by the Convenor, Local Level Monitoring Committee stating that a pond located on the north-south portion of the family temple has been polluted and an attempt is made by the petitioner and her husband to reclaim the pond by filling it with sand. It is also stated therein that a wall has been constructed on the northern boundary by the petitioner. It is further stated therein that if the same has **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **3** been done on permission, documents should be produced or else the action of petitioner would be treated as violation of the Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. That the petitioner on receipt of Ext.P4 immediately filed a detailed reply. Ext.P4 is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. The 3[rd] respondent committee does not have any jurisdiction much less any authority to issue a notice in the nature mentioned therein invoking the Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner has not been issued a copy of the complaint alleged to have been filed by the 4[th] respondent before the 1[st] respondent. The inspection alleged in the notice has been done without notice to the petitioner and her husband. Therefore, the entire action done by the 3[rd] respondent clearly violates the principles of natural justice and has been carried out behind the back of the petitioner. 2. 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. “Ext.P4 is illegal, unjust and violative of the principles of Natural justice. A reading of the same would amply make it clear that the 3[rd] respondent has no authority under law to issue a notice in the said nature invoking the Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008._ _B. The petitioner has not been issued a copy of the complaint alleged to have been filed by the 4[th] respondent before the 1[st] respondent. The inspection alleged in the notice has been done without notice to the petitioner and her husband. Therefore, the entire action done by the 3[rd] respondent clearly violates the principles of natural justice and has been carried out behind the back of the petitioner._ _C. The issue regarding the boundary of the property bequeathed to her husband as per Ext.P1 is now pending before the competent civil court. In fact Ext.P3 report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in the pending civil suit would unequivocally establish that the pond lies in the property of petitioner’s husband.”_ 3. Heard Sri.V.Premchand, learned counsel appearing for the **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **4** petitioner and Sri.K.J.Manuraj, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to contesting respondent No.4 will stand dispensed with. 4. Sri.V.Premchand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegation in the impugned order dated 18.3.2020 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee as if the subject pond mentioned in the said impugned order is a property in the lawful ownership and possession of a temple devaswom as has been alleged by the 4[th] respondent is absolutely factually wrong and incorrect. In that regard, it is pointed out that the petitioner has already filed a civit suit as original suit O.S.No.2632/2013 before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur in which the 4[th] respondent herein has been arrayed as the 1[st] defendant therein seeking for injunction and fixation of the boundary and as per the details shown in the averments as well as in the plaint schedule, it is clearly shown that the subject pond is within the private property of the petitioner herein. In that regard, Ext.P2 is the plaint in the said original suit and Ext.P3 report dated 15.9.2017 has been submitted by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the said civil court in the said original suit, in which the Advocate Commissioner has clearly found that the subject pond is within the private property of the petitioner. That the civil court has also issued interim injunction in the said suit. Further that, the stand taken by the 3[rd] respondent in the impugned Ext.P4 order as if the subject pond is a **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **5** ‘wetland’ as per Sec.2 (xviii) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland, 2008 and therefore, the penal measures should be taken against the petitioner for having contravened the provisions of the said Act are legally untenable and unsustainable and without jurisdiction. It is urged by the petitioner that the subject pond cannot even be remotely held to satisfy the definition of wetland as per Sec.2(xviii) of the abovesaid 2008 Act and will not also fulfil the definition of paddy land as per Sec.2(xii) and that a mere perusal of the Basic Tax Register in respect of the subject property would clearly show that the entire property has been shown as purayidom/garden land/dry land. It is pointed out that there is a **wide** difference between pond (µá{¢) and a wetland (ÄHàVJ¿¢) as defined in Sec.2 (xviii) of the 2008 Act. ## 5. Sec.2(xviii) of the 2008 Act defines ‘wetland’ as follows : _Sec.2(xviii) - “wetland means land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterized by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, marshes, salt marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and rivers.”_ ## 6. It is also pertinent to refer to the Malayalam version of the abovesaid Act which defines wetland (ÄHàVJ¿¢) as follows : > ÄHàVJ¿¢ ®KÞW ÎHí ¼ÜÉâøßÄÎÞAßæAÞIí µødÉçÆÖJßÈᢠ¼ÜÞÖÏBZAᢠ§¿ÏßW ØíÅßÄßæºÏîáKÄᢠ¼ÜÈßøMí ØÞÇÞø÷ÄßÏßW ©ÉøßÄÜ¢ ÕæøçÏÞ ¥ÄßçÈÞ¿¿áçJÞ ¦ÏßøßAáµçÏÞ ¦Ý¢µáùE ¼ÜJÞW Îâ¿ßAß¿AáµçÏÞ ¥ÅÕÞ Îw·ÄßÏßW ºÜßAáµçÏÞ æµGßAß¿AáµçÏÞ æºÏîáK ¼ÜJßæa ØÞKßic¢ æµÞIí ØÕßçÖ×ÎÞµáµçÏÞ æºÏîáK ØíÅÜ¢ ®KVÄÅÎÞµáKÄᢠ¥ÄßW µÞÏÜáµZ, ¥ÝßÎá¶BZ, çºxádÉçÆÖBZ, µ¿çÜÞøAÞÏÜáµZ, µIWAÞ¿áµZ, ºÄáMáÈßÜBZ, ³øáU ºÄáMí ÈßÜBZ, ºÄáMßæÜ µÞ¿áµZ ®KßÕ ©ZæM¿áKÄá¢, æÈW ÕÏÜáµ{ᢠÈÆßµ{ᢠ©ZæM¿ÞJÄáÎÞµáKá.” 7. It has been held in the decisions of this Court as in _**Asma**_ **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **6** _**v.District Collector**_ [2015 KHC 2389 = 2015 (1) KLT 30] that a bare reading of the definition of wetland as per Sec.2(xviii) of the 2008 Act would clearly indicate that wetland is a natural land lying between terrestrial and aquatic system and that said definition of wetland will not bring into its fold, a pond dug in a dryland for the purpose of aquaculture etc. It will be profitable to refer to the said short judgment of this Court in _**Asma’s case (supra)**_ [2015 KHC 2389] which reads as follows : _The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 2 Acres of property comprised in Survey Nos.60/1,60/2 and 65 of Azheekode Village, Eriyad Panchayat in Thrissur District. 2. It is admitted that the property mentioned as above is included as wetland in the draft data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, the “Act 28 of 2008”).3. The above property consists of eight manmade ponds for aquaculture and other improvements. However, in the data bank, this property is classified private pond. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is stated that in the basic tax register, the total extent of four ponds in Survey No.65 is 1 Acre and 5 cents; the extent of one pond situated in Survey No.60/2 is 15 cents; so also the extent of two ponds in Survey No.60/1 is approximately 15 cents.Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the manmade ponds can be treated as a wetland for the purpose of conservation of paddy land and wetland. The wetland is defined under S.2(xviii) of the Act as follows:_ _“wetland” means land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table isusually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterized by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, marshes, salt marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and rivers.”_ _A bare reading of the definition of “wetland” would indicate that wetland is a natural land lying between terrestrial and aquatic system. It will not bring into the fold, a pond dug in a dry land for the purpose of aquaculture._ _4. In the counter itself it is stated that the property in Survey No.65 is shown as nilam in the basic tax register. However, it is seen from Ext.P6 report of the Additional Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer that though the property in Survey No.65 is shown as nilam in the basic tax register, it is converted long before the enactment of the Act and further that the land situated in Survey Nos.60/1 and 2 is classified as purayidam in the basic tax register._ _5. Therefore, I am of the view that the property situated in Survey Nos.60/1 and 2 is purayidam and the petitioner is free to reclaim the land and undertake any other construction activities in accordance with law. The inclusion of the land in Survey Nos.60/1 and2 as wetland in the draft data bank is set aside. It is hereby declared that for all practical purposes, the property in Survey_ **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **7** _Nos.60/1 and 2 is declared as purayidam._ _6. The property situated in Survey No.65 is shown as nilam in the basic tax register. Considering the fact that this property is reclaimed long ago before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, I am of the view that this property cannot also be included either as a paddy or as a wetland in the draft data bank. However, for the purpose of utilising the land in Survey No.65, petitioner requires permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order from the Collector. In that view of the matter, the petitioner shall approach the Collector for permission to utilise the land for other purposes. If the land in Survey No.65 is lying contiguous to the land in Survey Nos.60/1 and 2, necessary permission shall be granted to the petitioner to utilise the land for other purposes along with the other land in Survey Nos.60/1 and 2. Therefore, if the petitioner approaches the District Collector, Thrissur under Clause 6 of the KLUO seeking permission to utilise the land situated in Survey No.65 for other purposes within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the application shall be considered in the light of the above within a further period of four weeks._ _The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.”_ ## Further, this Court has held in decision as in _**Suraj** v._ _**State of**_ ## _**Kerala**_ [2018 (1) KHC 250 = 2018 (1) KLT 1] has held in para Nos. 11 and ## 14 as follows : 11. _“The Act is one brought into force to conserve the Paddy land and Wetland in the State in order to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system. Section 2 (xviii) of the Act defines 'wetland' thus; (xviii) “wetland” means land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterized by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, marshes, salt marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and rivers; As held by this Court in Asma v. District Collector (2015 (1) KLT 30), the wetlands brought under the purview of the Act are natural lands lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems. If one understands the scope of the definition in the context of the Act, It is evident that the word 'systems' contained in the definition refers to ecosystems. In other words, natural lands lying between terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic ecosystems in the State alone would fall within the ambit of the definition. If this was the legislative intention, the land which was was originally a paddy land, even if it is admitted so, would never fall within the definition of 'wetland' under the Act. The case of the organisation referred to above that the paddy land referred to by them in their report was interspersed by wetlands also would not improve the case of the petitioners in the light of the definition of 'wetland' contained in the Act. 12. Further, provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('the Rules') dealing with the preparation of Data Bank under the Act indicate beyond doubt that the Village Officer concerned has to satisfy, based on revenue records, the existence of wetlands and only such wetlands are liable to be included in the Data Bank to be prepared under the Act. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules reads thus_ : “(2) (1)_Þ¢ ©ÉºGdɵÞø¢ ÈßÜÕßÜáU µc×ßçÏÞ·cÎÞÏ æÈWÕÏÜáµ{áç¿ÏᢠÄHàVJ¿B{áç¿ÏᢠÕßÖÆÕßÕøB{¿BßÏ çÁxÞÌÞCí ÄÏîÞùÞAáKÄßçÜAí ÄÞæÝMùÏáK È¿É¿ßdµÎ¢ ÉÞÜßçAIÄÞÃí, ¥ÏÄí:_ (®) ØÎßÄßAí ¥ÇßµÞøßÄÏáU dÉçÆÖæJ ÈßÜÕßÜáU ùÕÈcá ùßAÞVÁáµZ dɵÞø¢ **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **8** µc×ßçÏÞ·cÎÞÏ æÈWÕÏÜÞÏß çø¶æM¿áJßÏßGáU ÍâÎßÏáæ¿ ÕßÖÆÞ¢ÖBZ ÌtæMG ÕßçÜï¼í ³ËàØV ÌtæMG µc×ß ³ËàØVAí ÈWçµIÄᢠ§Äßæa ¥¿ßØíÅÞÈJßW µc×ß ³ËàØV, ³çøÞ ØíÅÜÕᢠÉøßçÖÞÇߺîí dÉØñáÄØíÅÜ¢ §çMÞZ æÈWµc×ßAí ¥ÈáçÏÞ¼cÎÞÏ æÈW ÕÏW ¦çÃÞæÏKí ÉøßçÖÞÇߺîᢠÄHàVJ¿Bæ{ Ø¢Ìtߺî ùÕÈcá ùßAÞVÁáµ{áæ¿ ¥¿ßØíÅÞÈJßW ÕßçÜï¼í ³ËàØV ØíÅÜÉøßçÖÞÇÈ È¿JßÏᢠçÌÞicæMç¿IÄᢠ¥dɵÞø¢ ÉøßçÖÞÇÈ È¿Jß çÌÞicæMG ÕßÕøB{âæ¿ ¥¿ßØíÅÞÈJßW, µc×ß ³ËàØùᢠÕßçÜï¼í ³ËàØùᢠµâ¿ß æÈWÕÏÜáµ{áæ¿ÏᢠÄHàVJ¿B {áæ¿Ïᢠ²øá µø¿í çÁxÞÌÞCí ÄÏîÞùÞAß ØÎßÄßÏáæ¿ Éøß·ÃÈÏíAí ØÎVMßçAIÄáÎÞà (Ìß) (®) ¶mdɵÞø¢ ÜÍßºî µø¿í çÁxÞÌÞCí ØÎßÄß ÉøßçÖÞÇßçAIÄᢠ¦ÕÖcæÎCßW, ÏáµñÎÞÏ ÄßøáJÜáµZ ÕøáçJIÄáÎÞÃí. ØÎßÄßÏáæ¿ ¥ÇßµÞøÉøßÇßAáUßæÜ æÈWÕÏÜáµ{áç¿ÏᢠÄHàVJ¿B{áæ¿ÏᢠdÉØñáÄ µø¿í çÁxÞÌÞCí, ÈÞ×ÃW ùßçÎÞVGí æØXØßBí ¯¼ÈßØßçÏÞ, Ø¢ ØíÅÞÈ ÍâÕßÈßçÏÞ· çÌÞVçÁÞ, ÍìÎÖÞdØñ ÉÀÈçµdwçÎÞ (CESS), §XçËÞVçÎ×X çµø{Þ Îß×çÈÞ (IKM), ÎçxæÄCßÜᢠçµdw/Ø¢ØíÅÞÈ ÖÞdØñ ØÞçCÄßµØíÅÞÉÈçÎÞ, ©Éd·ÙºßdÄB{áæ¿ ¥¿ßØíÅÞÈJßW ÄÏîÞùÞAßÏßGáU ÍâÉ¿Jßæa ØÙÞÏçJÞæ¿ ÉøßçÖÞÇߺîí ¥LßÎøâÉ¢ ÈWµß ØÎßÄß ¥¢·àµøßçAIÄÞÃí. ®KÞW ¨ ©ÉºGdɵÞø¢ µø¿í çÁxÞÌÞCí ÄÏîÞùÞAáçOÞZ ©Éd·ÙJßæa ¥ ¿ßØíÅÞÈJßW ¯xÕᢠ¥ÕØÞÈ¢ ÄÏîÞùÞAßÏ çÁxÞÌÞCí ¦ÏßøßAâ ¥ÕÜ¢ ÌßçAIÄí. ” _It is thus evident that the Statute does not contemplate inclusion of any land which is not shown as wetland in the revenue records, as wetland in the Data Bank to be prepared under the Act. The case of the petitioners that the land of the ninth respondent is a wetland coming within the purview the Act is therefore, rejected. 14. The question remaining to be considered is whether the land of the ninth respondent is one which would fall within the scope of 'wetland' covered by the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 (the Wetland Rules). The definition of 'wetland' contained in the Wetland Rules reads thus;_ _“wetland” means an area or of marsh, fen, peatland or water; natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters and includes all inland waters such as lakes, reservoir, tanks, backwaters, lagoon, creeks, estuaries and manmade wetland and the zone of direct influence on wetlands that is to say the drainage area or catchment region of the wetlands as determined by the authority but does not include main river channels, paddy fields and the coastal wetland covered under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forest, S.O.number 114(E) dated the 19th February, 1991 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) of dated the 20th February, 1991;”_ _As noted above, even according to the petitioners, the water bodies in the land of the ninth respondent are river channels. River channels are specifically excluded from the definition of 'wetland' contained in the Wetland Rules. Further, protected wetlands under the Wetland Rules are the wetlands referred to in Rule 3 of the Wetland Rules. Rule 3 reads thus :_ _“3. Protected wetlands - Based on the significance of the functions performed by the wetlands for overall well being of the people and for determining the extent and level of regulation, the following wetlands shall be regulated under these rules, namely:-_ _(i) wetlands categorized as Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention as specified in the Schedule._ _(ii) wetlands in areas that are ecologically sensitive and important, such as, national parks, marine parks, sanctuaries, reserved forests, wildlife habitats, mangroves, corals, coral reefs, areas of outstanding natural beauty or historical or heritage areas and the areas rich in genetic diversity;_ **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **9** _(iii) wetlands recognized as or lying within a UNESCO World Heritage Site; iv) high altitude wetlands or high altitude wetland complexes at or above an elevation of two thousand five hundred metres with an area equal to or greater than five hectares;_ _(v) wetlands or wetland complexes below an elevation of two thousand five hundred metres with an area equal to or greater than five hundred hectares. (vi) any other wetland as so identified by the Authority and thereafter notified by the Central Government under the provisions of the Act for the purposes of these rules.”_ _The petitioners have no case that the land of the ninth respondent would fall under any one of the six categories of wetlands covered by Rule 3 of the Wetland Rules. This question is also, therefore, answered against the petitioners._ Further, it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case in _**Mather Nagar Residents' Association**_ v. _**District Collector, Ernakulam and others**_ [2020 (2) KHC 94] para 22 that a fallow land can never be treated as a ‘wetland’ as per Sec.2(xviii) of the abovesaid Act and merely because the property is a lying fallow and gets water logged etc. on account of the low lying nature of the property etc. will not make such a property a wetland as per the abovesaid Act. Further, it has been held by this Court in the case in _**Ajikumar K.V**_ **.** v. _**Vinod Kumar & others**_ [2016 (1) KHC 477] that man made pond in paddy lands if not used for paddy cultivation, will not satisfy the definition of wetland as per Sec.2(xviii) of the Act. 9. Per contra, Sri.K.J.Manuraj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would submit that the instructions that he has received is to the effect that the subject property governed by the impugned Ext.P7 order is a wetland. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is constrained to hold that an order in the nature of Ext.P4 **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **10** envisaging penal measures to be taken against the petitioner for the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 can be initiated only if the subject property either satisfy the definition of ‘paddy land’ as per Sec.2(xii) or that of ‘wetland’ as per Sec.2(xviii) as on the crucial date, 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of the 2008 Act). Further, even if the property is shown as ‘paddy land’ or ‘wetland’ in the BTR and is included in the land data bank/provisional data bank as per 2008 Act as ‘paddy land’ or ‘wetland’, so long as the subject property has been converted as ‘purayidom’/’dryland’ before 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of the 2008 Act), none of the penal measures as per the provisions of the 2008 Act can be initiated in respect of the subject property. Further, it has been noted that some of the factual assumptions made in Ext.P4 as if the pond is lying in the private property of a temple devaswom may not be tenable, if as a matter of fact the plaint schedule property covered by Ext.P2 civil suit is inclusive of the said pond, which might imply and if as a matter of fact the petitioner has already secured interim injunction in the said suit, in which the 4[th] respondent herein has been arrayed as the 1[st] defendant. More crucially, irrespective as to who is having the ownership and possession of the subject pond, the most crucial important thing to be noted is that pond (µá{¢) cannot be construed as a wetland (ÄHàVJ¿¢) as defined as per Sec.2(xviii) of the 2008 Act. Unless the parameters in the basic definition of wetland as per Sec.2(xviii) of the **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **11** 2008 Act are fully satisfied, there is no question of assuming that the said property is a wetland (ÄHàVJ¿¢) as per the said Act. 11. From a reading of the impugned Ext.P4 order, it appears that none of the abovesaid vital and crucial aspects urged by the petitioner has not even been remotely considered by the 3[rd] respondent. So also the crucial issue as to the exact description of the subject property in the BTR entries and also as to whether the subject property has been shown either as paddy land or wetland in the BTR or which has been included as paddy land or wetland as per the land data bank has not even been adverted to anywhere in the impugned order. More importantly, the petitioner would point out that the inspection referred to in Ext.P4 has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner and without prior notice to the petitioner and copy of the inspection report has also not been given to the petitioner and the petitioner has also not been heard before the impugned Ext.P4 order was taken. Accordingly, the matter requires serious reconsideration at the hands of the 3[rd] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee. For effectuating such a remit, the impugned Ext.P4 order will stand set aside and the matter in relation to will stand remitted to the 3[rd] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee for consideration and decision afresh. 12. The 3[rd] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee will immediately get a report from the Tahsildar/Village Officer concerned as to the exact description of the property in the BTR. So also it has to be **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **12** ascertained as to whether the subject property covered by Ext.P4 has been included as paddy land or wetland as per the data bank prepared as per the 2008 Act. More crucially, it has also to be ascertained as to whether the subject property actually satisfies the definition of paddy land as per Sec.2(xii) or the definition of wetland as per Sec.2(xviii) as on 12.8.2008. The details of BTR entries and also that in relation to the data bank entries in respect of the subject property should be intimated to the petitioner in writing immediately. Thereafter, it will be open to the 3[rd] respondent to conduct any inspection, but only with due prior notice to the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent and copies of the inspection report should also be given both to the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent in advance. Thereafter, the 3[rd] respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee should afford reasonable opportunity of being heard both to the petitioner as well as the 4[th] respondent and should take a considered decision in the matter as to whether any measures for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 is really called for. In that regard, the 3[rd] respondent-Committee should definitely take into account the aspects borne out from Exts.P2 and P3 civil court proceedings and also as to the applicability of the abovesaid crucial parameters as well as the legal principles laid down by this Court in the aforecited judgments to the facts and circumstances of this case. Orders in this regard may be passed afresh by the 3[rd] respondent Local Level **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **13** Monitoring Committee without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 13. The petitioner will produce a copy of the memorandum of this W.P.(C.) along with all the exhibits as well as the copy of the judgment to the respondents 2, 3 and the Village Officer concerned. The Registry will forward a certified copy of this judgment to R4, at the cost of the petitioner. 14. Needless to say that it may not be necessary for the 3[rd] respondent to resolve any of the issues relating to the ownership and possession of the subject property, which is now pending in civil litigation. With these observations and directions, the above W.P.(C.) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** SKS **WP(C).No.10575 OF 2020(V)** **14** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DATED 27.1.2004. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 14.6.2013 IN OS.NO.2632/2013 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15.9.2017 IN OS.NO.2632/2013 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.4.2020 BY THE PETITIONER.**