JUDGMENT : A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by holders of paddy land in Mannur Grama Panchayat in Palakkad District. They pray for police protection for life and property. Thereafter, the prayers also have been amended challenging an action on the part of the Agricultural Officer, Local Level Monitoring Committee (‘LLMC’ for short) and the Panchayat taking over their land for paddy cultivation invoking the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short ‘Act 28 of 2008’). 2. The prayers for police protection cannot be considered in isolation without adverting to the action initiated under Act 28 of 2008. 3. Mannur Grama Panchayat is having an agricultural land of 325 hectares. Group farming is practised through 16 Padasekhara Samithis. There are also individual cultivators like the petitioners. Act 28 of 2008 contains a provision to cultivate paddy land left alone. LLMC on being satisfied that the holder of paddy land failed to cultivate paddy land within the 15 days period, a different procedure is set out causing paddy cultivation through others. The bone of dispute in these cases is in regard to the procedure adopted for paddy cultivation by LLMC and the Panchayat through others [Padasekhara Samithi (11th respondent in both the cases)]. 4. The petitioners, feeling high-handedness in taking over their land by the Padasekhara Samithi with the help of the Agricultural Officer, approached this Court for police protection. After the filing of the counter affidavit and statement in W.P. (C) No. 33535/2019, the petitioners therein realised that the taking over of the land was by invoking Act 28 of 2008 and therefore, they amended the writ petition challenging the taking over of the land for cultivation as well. 5. Before referring to the issues involved, it is appropriate to refer Act 28 of 2008 in regard to the procedure to be adopted for causing paddy cultivation other than through the holder of the land under the said Act. Act 28 of 2008 was enacted on the State realising that there is an alarming shift from rice and subsistence food farming to cash crops. As seen from the statement of objects and reasons of Act 28 of 2008, rice cultivation in the State drastically reduced from eight lakh hectares in the early 1970 to nearly two lakh hectares in the 2000. As seen from the statement of objects and reasons of Act 28 of 2008, rice cultivation in the State drastically reduced from eight lakh hectares in the early 1970 to nearly two lakh hectares in the 2000. Noting that paddy land is being converted, in order to preserve paddy land and to preserve paddy as an amphibious crop and to sustain ecological balance, the State enacted Act 28 of 2008. It takes in both positive as well as negative measures to achieve its objectives. 6. LLMC constituted in each local authority has pivotal role in the implementation of the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. It consists of elected representatives of the local body, farmers and the Agricultural Officer, who is a public servant as the Convenor of such committee. Given the democratic nature of the committee, its decision is decisive in implementing the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. 7. LLMC thus has the power to direct the holder of the land to cultivate uncultivated paddy land or left as a fallow to cultivate with paddy or any other intermediary crops as provided under the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. This is the first step that can be taken by LLMC. There are three modes of procedures for causing cultivation through others. One based on permission, second based on deemed permission and the third based on the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the event the holder denies permission to cause cultivation through others. The power and procedure are set out in Sections 15 and 16 of Act 28 of 2008 for causing cultivation of paddy land through the Panchayat. The objects of Sections 15 and 16 are founded on the doctrine of abuse of rights. This doctrine often used in civil law system also found acceptance in common law jurisdiction as well. Leaving a cultivable land as fallow is considered as an abuse of right of the holder of the land. In light of Act 28 of 2008, the law assumes that leaving cultivable land as fallow would harm the interest of the Society and the State. 8. In these cases, LLMC and the Panchayat justify their action based on deemed permission. Therefore, I need to advert only in regard to the procedures based on deemed permission. 9. In light of Act 28 of 2008, the law assumes that leaving cultivable land as fallow would harm the interest of the Society and the State. 8. In these cases, LLMC and the Panchayat justify their action based on deemed permission. Therefore, I need to advert only in regard to the procedures based on deemed permission. 9. The first step is that a notice has to be issued by LLMC giving a direction under Section 15 of Act 28 of 2008 to the holder of the land to cultivate paddy. Once notice is issued under Section 15, if the holder of the land does not reply to the direction under Section 15, LLMC has to issue a second request to the holder of paddy land as contemplated under Section 16(3A). The period fixed is 15 days to give a response. If the holder of paddy land fails to give a reply, it shall be deemed that the holder of paddy land has granted permission. Thus, it enables LLMC to proceed with the next step. 10. The next step based on deemed permission is as contained under Section 16(3G). LLMC has to inform the local authority in writing, by an order, to entrust the right of cultivation for a maximum period of two years with others. The local authority, by itself or by entering into an agreement with others, entrust the arrangement of cultivation. There is no transfer of interest involved in the entrustment. What is given is the right of permission to cultivate the land. The local authority has to follow certain priorities in selecting agencies for entrusting paddy cultivation [See Sections 16(4) and 16(5)] for transparency of the procedure and to weed out any arbitrariness. 11. In these cases, LLMC claimed that they have issued notices and the petitioners failed to respond to those notices. Accordingly, the Agricultural Officer, invoking deemed provision, entrusted paddy cultivation with the Padashekhara Samithi as afore-noted for a period of 5 months from 26.11.2019. The Panchayat is the authority to entrust paddy cultivation with others. Realising that the Agricultural Officer has no independent power, the Panchayat on 27.1.2020 ratified the action of the Agricultural Officer. These writ petitions were filed on 9.12.2019. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jacob Sebastian pointing out to the violation of the procedures raised two crucial points. The Panchayat is the authority to entrust paddy cultivation with others. Realising that the Agricultural Officer has no independent power, the Panchayat on 27.1.2020 ratified the action of the Agricultural Officer. These writ petitions were filed on 9.12.2019. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jacob Sebastian pointing out to the violation of the procedures raised two crucial points. One is in regard to the issuance of notice and the other is in regard to the power of the Agricultural Officer. 13. According to the learned counsel, Jacob Sebastian, the petitioners never received any notices from LLMC. According to him, the statutory provisions have to be strictly complied before inter-meddling with the right of the holder of the land to enjoy the land. The learned counsel submits that the right to property is a constitutionally protected right under Article 300A and which includes right to enjoyment of the property as well. The learned counsel submits that both notices as contemplated under Sections 15 and 16(3A) were not received by them. He points out that, except the production of despatch register, nothing has been produced to show that notices were received or refused by the petitioners. The learned counsel placed reliance on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Agrofab, Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2019 KHC 2471. The Rajasthan High Court, after referring to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act held that service of notice by ordinary post and showing it in a despatch register does not prove the fact of service of such notice. It is further argued that the Agricultural Officer has no power to entrust cultivation of land with others and the Panchayat alone has the power of such entrustment. According to him, subsequent ratification will not save an illegal act. 14. The learned Additional Advocate General, Ranjith Thampan justified the actions of the Agricultural Officer by submitting that an official action carries presumption as referable under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore, despatch register maintained in the office in normal course of official function would be sufficient to hold the presumption in favour of despatch and receipt of notices by the petitioners. The learned Additional Advocate General further argued that in the light of the objects of Act 28 of 2008, mere irregularity or lapse itself cannot defeat the action as the ultimate aim of the action itself is to sub-serve larger community interest or public interest. The learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the judgment of this Court in Meghi Malsee Ltd. vs. Oomen, 1963 KHC 305 in support of the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act in regard to official acts. The learned counsel for Padasekhara Samithi, Adv. Dinesh Mathew J. Murikan also supported the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General. 15. The law contemplates deemed friction on the existence of certain factors. The Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Kharim and Another vs. Pazhayakunummel Grama Panchayat and Another, 2018 (5) KHC 643 held that “a deeming provision is based on legal fiction for attaining a desired legal consequence. Therefore it will have to be strictly interpreted. It becomes operational only upon such factors as referred and exist under the statutory provision. The court cannot eschew the elements that are required to form part of legal fiction while interpreting the provision. All the elements must be satisfied to give effect to the deeming provision. Therefore, we have to examine the elements which are required to declare that the applicant would be entitled to a deemed licence. The Court also will have to consider the very object of such deeming provision in the light of the statutory provisions.” Therefore, there should be a strict adherence to the factors to hold deemed permission. The right to property though not a fundamental right is a constitutionally protected right. No person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. Thus, when power is invoked under the statutory provisions, relatable to deemed permission, the procedure prescribed therein must be strictly followed. There is no prescription of the mode of issuing a direction under Section 15 of Act 28 of 2008 for LLMC to direct the holder of the land to cultivate uncultivated and fallow paddy land. However, as seen from Sections 16(2) and 16(3B), the mode of communication is by sending a letter. The purpose of both the provisions is to ensure that the holder of the land is served with the notice. However, as seen from Sections 16(2) and 16(3B), the mode of communication is by sending a letter. The purpose of both the provisions is to ensure that the holder of the land is served with the notice. In the absence of any other mode prescribed under Act 28 of 2008, service of such letter has to be understood to be effected as prescribed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Therefore, notice has to be sent by registered post. When a serious repercussion would arise consequent upon non response to the notice as it would affect the rights of holders of the land, LLMC cannot take procedure as lightly. There is no proof of service of notice. Mere entry in the despatch register itself will not constitute a proof. When law mandates service of notice, the procedure that has to be followed is with reference to the statute itself and in the absence of procedure in such statute, it has to be in accordance with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. If a prescribed procedure is not followed, there is no presumption for any official act. The presumption to the official act would arise only when the action itself was following the procedure. 16. The Agricultural Officer has no power to enter into an agreement with the Padashekahara Samithi. LLMC has to inform the local authority in writing, by an order, to entrust the right of cultivation with others as contemplated under Section 16(3G) of Act 28 of 2008. The statement filed in this case by the Secretary of the local authority dated 16.12.2019 clearly establishes that the Panchayat has no idea about entrusting the cultivation with the Padasekhara Samithi. The subsequent decision of the Panchayat cannot justify an illegal action as legal action. It is to be noted that the Panchayat has to follow certain procedures to entrust right of cultivation as contemplated under Section 16(5) of Act 28 of 2008. This procedure also has been violated as the Panchayat had no occasion to come into the picture before the entrustment with the Padaskhekhara Samithi. 17. The facts reveal that the action is highhandedness of the Agricultural Officer in violating the statutory provisions. He has shown undue interest in this matter. All the communications in this matter is that of him. It is even doubtful whether LLMC had deliberated and taken the decision. 17. The facts reveal that the action is highhandedness of the Agricultural Officer in violating the statutory provisions. He has shown undue interest in this matter. All the communications in this matter is that of him. It is even doubtful whether LLMC had deliberated and taken the decision. I have serious doubt in regard to despatch registers and other registers produced by him before this Court. The decision that has to be taken is of LLMC and not of the Agricultural Officer. The Agricultural Officer was individually arrayed in the party array. He has not chosen to appear and contest personally in spite of mala fide allegations against him. In such circumstances, he should be saddled with a liability to pay costs. 18. The paddy cultivation has been commenced by the Padasekhara Samithi. They have no role for themselves, except for the entrustment made by the Agricultural Officer. This Court cannot ignore the investments made by them. The Court cannot also ignore the object of Act 28 of 2008. Therefore, the relief has to be moulded in such a way to balance the interest of the petitioners as well as the Padasekhara Samithi vis-a-vis Act 28 of 2008. This Court is of the view that the land would be deemed to be in control of the petitioners immediately on condition that they would cultivate paddy and they will not destroy paddy cultivation already undertaken by the Padasekhara Samithi in their land. They will also have to make reimbursement of the cost of the investment made by the Padasekhara Samithi. 19. Police had registered a case. They had not taken any action in this matter apparently for the reason that action has been initiated by the officials under Act 28 of 2008. It appears that the petitioners had raised a complaint in regard to the destruction of the movables belonged to them and other agricultural crops. One of the petitioners is a Panchayat member. The political differences is attributed as the reason for high-handed action in taking over the land of the petitioners. Police, therefore, has to maintain law and order and shall ensure that protection is accorded to the life and property of the petitioners, if so warranted. 20. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed with the following directions: (i) The control of the land in question would stand vested with the petitioners forthwith. Police, therefore, has to maintain law and order and shall ensure that protection is accorded to the life and property of the petitioners, if so warranted. 20. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed with the following directions: (i) The control of the land in question would stand vested with the petitioners forthwith. (ii) The Padasekhara Samithi (respondent No. 11 in both the writ petitions) is restrained from engaging paddy cultivation and interfering with the petitioners' land. (iii) The petitioners shall reimburse the investments made by the Padasekhara Samithi. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad, is directed to assess the cost of the investments within a period of two weeks. The petitioners, thereafter, shall reimburse the investment costs to the Padasekhara Samithi through the Revenue Divisional Officer within a further period of two weeks. (iv) The petitioners shall cultivate paddy in the land and shall not destroy paddy cultivation carried out by the Padasekhara Samithi in their land. (v) The Agricultural Officer, Mukunthan shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) each to the petitioners in both the writ petitions within a period of one month. (vi) The police shall maintain law and order and ensure that no obstruction is caused to the petitioners in carrying out and engaging themselves with the paddy cultivation in their land.