ORDER : Alexander Thomas, J. 1. The case set up in this writ petition is as follows:- The petitioners are the owner in possession of the properties having an extent of 62.52 ares, comprised in Re.Sy. No. 329/2(OId Survey No. 553/1) of Kadamakkudy Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam district. 2. It is submitted that the land has been used for paddy cultivation and prawn and fish fanning. On 16.06.2018, when the petitioners were away from the scheduled property, 5 and 6 respondents, Gopi, S/o. Janardanan Theruviparambil and his son Gopan trespassed into the scheduled property and illegally obtained two meters width of land from the north end of the petitioners land and placed concrete posts and converted the paddy land by using concrete waste and industrial waste. By this act, the offenders destroyed the ecological condition of the said wetland which was used for seasonal paddy cultivation and prawns filtration. 3. Against the illegal activity by the 5 and 6 respondents, the 1 petitioner herein lodged Ext. P2 written complaint before the Village Officer, Kadamakkudy Village Office and a copy of the same complaint was forwarded to President, Kadamakkudy Grama Panchayatha and Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Kadamakkudy. 4. The Exhibit P2 complaint filed by the 1st petitioner was forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and a report regarding the complaint was filed before the RDO, Fort Kochi by Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Kadamakkudy on 07.08.2018. Taking matter into consideration, the RDO, Fort Kochi registered a case as K2-2329/18 and sent a notice for the hearing of the matter concerned and joint hearing was conducted on 24.10.2018. But to a great dismay of the petitioners, no appropriate actions were initiated by RDO, Fort Kochi after the hearing and offenders continues to be in the possession of the land of the petitioners. On 13.01.2020 the 2nd petitioner herein filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking details about the proceedings in case No. K2-2329/18. On 13.02.2020, the 2nd petitioner received a reply from the officer of the RDO, Fort Kochi in the RTI Application dated 13.01.2020 stating that no further proceedings were initiated in case No. K2-2329/18 till this date. 5. It is clear that the offenders violate the provision in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 in conserving and preserving the paddy land and wetland. 5. It is clear that the offenders violate the provision in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 in conserving and preserving the paddy land and wetland. Though the petitioners lodged complaint and seek appropriate action from the concerned Government bodies, no sufficient measures were. taken by the authorities to stop the encroachment and restore the wetland into its prior condition. Since all the earnest efforts made by the petitioners were ignored and adequate actions were delayed without any valid reasons, the petitioners are not left with any other effective remedy than approaching this Court. Hence this Writ Petition. 6. In the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with following prayers:- i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate action whereby removing the encroachment done by the 5 and 6 respondents and restoring the condition of the land having an extent of 62.52 Ares, comprising in Resurvey number 329/2 (Old Survey No. 553/1 of Kadamakudy village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District to its prior condition making the land eligible for agricultural purposes. ii) To issue direction to the 1st respondent to take appropriate action against the 5 and 6 respondents for violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008. 7. Heard Sri. M.B. Sandeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. K.J. Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7. In the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notice to respondent No. 3 Kadamakudy Grama panchayat and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 will stand dispensed with. 8. According to the petitioners, the subject property owns by them is a paddy land wherein both paddy cultivation and fish and prawn farming are also undertaking. On 16.06.2018, when the petitioners were away from the said property, the 5 and 6 respondents trespassed into the scheduled property and illegally obtained two metres width of land from the north end of the above said property and placed concrete posts and thus converted the paddy land by using concrete waste and industrial waste and that thereby, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have destroyed the ecological conditions of the said paddy land which could be used both for paddy cultivation as well as seasonal fish and prawn cultivation. 5 and 6 have destroyed the ecological conditions of the said paddy land which could be used both for paddy cultivation as well as seasonal fish and prawn cultivation. According to the petitioners, the above said acts of the contesting respondent Nos. 5 and 6 would amount to an act of reclamation or conversion of the said land as conceived in Section 3(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that, in such cases, the statutory officer has the power under section 13 of the said Act to direct the persons who are responsible for such unlawful conversion or reclamation to reconvert the property to its original state etc. That the petitioners had submitted Ext. P2 complaint dated 18.06.2018 before respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 which in turn was served by them to the 1 respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, no effective action was forthcoming therefrom. 9. Petitioners had also subsequently filed Ext. P4 complaint dated 02.11.2019 before the 2 respondent-village officer, which is acknowledged by Ext. P5 receipt. Thereafter, the petitioners were called for personal hearing by the 1 respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext. P3 notice dated 12.10.2018,. The petitioners have attended the personal meeting on 24.10.2018. Thereafter, no effective action is forthcoming. Now, pursuant to Ext. P6 query raised by the petitioners under Right to Information Act proceedings, they have been informed as to Ext. P7 reply dated 13.02.2020 issued by the office of the 1 respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer that the matter has not been finalised so far. Thereafter, the petitioners have been served with Ext. P8 notice dated 02.06.2020 to attend another session of hearing before the 1st respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer on 05.06.2020. That the petitioners had received Ext. P8 notice dated 02.06.2020 only in the afternoon of 05.06.2020 and therefore, they could not attend the hearing etc. 10. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that before the amendment of the above said Act which was made effective from 30.12.2017, the powers under Section 13 of the Act could have been exercised either by the Collector of the District or by an officer like the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is empowered in that regard. 10. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that before the amendment of the above said Act which was made effective from 30.12.2017, the powers under Section 13 of the Act could have been exercised either by the Collector of the District or by an officer like the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is empowered in that regard. Now, after the amendment made effective from 30.12.2017, the According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the power conferred under Section 13 of the Act could be invoked by the additional 7th respondent, District collector as against respondent Nos. 7 and 8, after completing the enquiry process. 11. Without going into the merits of the controversy in any manner, the following directions and orders are passed:- (i) The 1 respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer will ensure that appropriate inspection is conducted through competent revenue officials like the Tahsildar/village officer etc., with due prior notice to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in respect of the allegations raised by the petitioners. (ii) Copy of the said inspection report should be given to both the petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in advance. Thereafter, the 1 respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 through their authorized representatives or counsel, if any, and then may form opinion as to whether the case discloses an activity of reclamation or conversion as envisaged under Section 3(1) of the Act and if so, further action is called for by the additional 7th respondent by taking recourse to Section 13 of the Act, on this basis. (iii) For taking such appropriate decision, the 1 respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer shall furnish a report dealing with all the factual aspects and his own opinion as in the matter as aforestated and the report shall be furnished by the 1 respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the additional 7th respondent, District Collector, Ernakulam. Thereafter, the additional 7th respondent, District Collector may afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. Thereafter, the additional 7th respondent, District Collector may afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6, and after following the requisite procedure, may take a considered decision in the matter as to whether the case involves reclamation or conversion of the property as envisaged under section 3(1) of the Act and as to whether the powers under Section 13 of the Act should be resorted to. Decision in this regard should be duly rendered by the additional 7th respondent within six weeks after the receipt of the report of the 1 respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer as aforesaid. (iv) Petitioners will produce certified copies of the judgment as well as the copies of the memorandum of the writ petition along with all exhibits before the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer and the additional 7 respondent, District Collector, Ernakulam. (v) Registry will forward certified copies of the judgment to respondent Nos. 5 and 6, at the cost of the petitioners. With these observations and directions, the above W.P.(C) stands disposed of.