JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge, by which, the prayer for consideration of an application preferred before the Local Level Monitoring Committee for conversion of land for the construction of a residential building was declined. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had purchased 4 cents of property, which was paddy land, and had submitted an application for conversion of the same for the purpose of construction of a residential building therein. It is submitted that, on the ground that the purchase by Ext.P1 sale deed was on 12.04.2019 and that the land forms part of large of extent of paddy land even going by Ext.P1 sale deed, the learned single Judge found that the direction as sought for, for consideration of the application could not be granted. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier purchased another part of land in the middle of the paddy field in question and that he had, thereafter, exchanged the same with the property which is not situated in the middle of the paddy land. It is submitted that the only prayer raised in the writ petition was for consideration of Ext.P3 application in accordance with law. It is submitted that non-suiting of the petitioner by this Court was not justified since Section 9 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'] specifically permitted submission of such an application and consideration thereof. 4. The learned Government Pleader would, on the other hand, submit that the property having been purchased only in the year 2019, the application preferred by the petitioner would not be entertainable in terms of Section 9. 5. Section 9 of the Act provides for constitution of the District Level Authorised Committee for consideration of application for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building. There is a proviso to the effect that the said committee shall not grant permission for filling up of paddy land for the construction of residential building exceeding an extent of 4.04 Ares in a Panchayat and an extent of 2.02 Ares in a Municipality/Corporation. Section 9(8) reads as follows : “9. Constitution of District Level Authorised Committee …..........…................................................ There is a proviso to the effect that the said committee shall not grant permission for filling up of paddy land for the construction of residential building exceeding an extent of 4.04 Ares in a Panchayat and an extent of 2.02 Ares in a Municipality/Corporation. Section 9(8) reads as follows : “9. Constitution of District Level Authorised Committee …..........…................................................ (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no application shall be considered by the District Level Authorised Committee, unless the Local Level Monitoring Committee has recommended that, - (i) such reclamation shall not adversely affect the ecological condition and the cultivation in the adjoining paddy land; (ii) the owner of the paddy land or his family do not own a suitable land for this purpose in that District; (iii) the building to be constructed for his own purpose; and (iv) such paddy land is not situated surrounded by other paddy lands.” 6. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant possesses only 4 cents of land and Ext.P3 application is, therefore, liable to be considered. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Local Level Monitoring Committee is authorised to consider the issue at the first instance and the said committee has to arrive at a conclusion that the reclamation shall not adversely affect the ecological condition and the cultivation in the adjoining paddy land, that the owner of the paddy land or his family do not own a suitable land for residential purpose in that district, that the building is to be constructed for his own purpose, and that such land is not situated surrounded by other paddy lands. It is submitted that in terms of sub section 8 of Section 9, it is only for the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider all these aspects at the first instance and it is only on the recommendation forwarded that the District Level Authorised Committee would be empowered to take up the application. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on either side, we are of the considered opinion that it is for the Local Level Monitoring Committee, at the first instance, to consider Ext.P3 application preferred by the petitioner. In view of the fact that there is no express prohibition contained in the Act, it is for the statutory authority to consider whether the application preferred by the petitioner is to be considered favourably. In view of the fact that there is no express prohibition contained in the Act, it is for the statutory authority to consider whether the application preferred by the petitioner is to be considered favourably. In case the 5th respondent finds that the application preferred by the petitioner is to be recommended, the same is liable to be forwarded with its recommendation to the District Level Authorised Committee. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment stands set aside. Ext.P3 application shall be considered by the 5th respondent and an appropriate report shall be forwarded, taking note of the provisions of Section 9(8) of the Act, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.