JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. 1. The petitioner possesses 11.341 Cents of property along with her children. The property is in Re-survey No. 81/10 in Block No. 34 of Kuzhimanna Village, Kondotty Taluk of Malappuram District. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order of the Local Level Monitoring Committee rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for removal of land from the Data Bank. 2. The petitioner wanted to construct a commercial building in the land and obtained Ext.P3 Building Permit dated 30.04.2015. When construction was started, the Village Officer issued a Stop Memo alleging that the property is paddy land and construction offends the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 3. The petitioner states that her property is dry land, converted long ago. There were standing trees on the land which were cut for facilitating building construction. Village Officer has issued Ext.P4 Possession Certificate showing the land as dry land. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application dated 22.08.2017 seeking to remove the land from Data Bank. Ext.P7 application was also submitted invoking the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. 4. As Ext.P6 application was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 28781 of 2017. In Ext.P8 judgment dated 30.08.2017, this Court directed the Agricultural Officer to obtain a report from the KSREC and to conduct a physical verification of the property. The LLMC was directed to consider Ext.P7 application thereafter. The District Collector was also required to consider Ext.P8 KLU application after receiving reports from LLMC. The 3rd respondent-LLMC, by Ext.P10 proceedings, rejected Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Ext.P10 is unsustainable since there is no indication in the KSREC report that the land remained as a paddy land at the commencement of the Act, 2008. In the judgment in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another vs. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others, 2020 (2) KHC 94 , this Court has held that merely because a land is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season, it cannot be termed as paddy land or wetland. 6. The KSREC report only stated that the land is observed as fallow land with mixed vegetation/plantation in the southern side in the data of the year 2008. 6. The KSREC report only stated that the land is observed as fallow land with mixed vegetation/plantation in the southern side in the data of the year 2008. The said finding in petitioner’s case is similar to the finding in the case Mather Nagar Residents Association and another (supra). In the report now filed by the Agricultural Officer, it has been stated that the petitioner has illegally filled up 2 Cents of paddy land. There is no such finding in Ext.P10. The respondents cannot bring in new grounds to sustain an order in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in OPTO Circuit India Ltd. vs. Axis Bank and Others, 2021 KHC 6047, contended the counsel for the petitioner. 7. As long as there is no data available to show that the petitioner’s land was a paddy land when the Act, 2008 came into effect, the judgment of this Court in Aisha Beevi vs. Superintendent of Police, 2014 (3) KLT 1078 would apply. In the said judgment, this Court has held that the bar under the Act, 2008 would not apply to land which was already converted when the Act, 2008 came into force, urged the counsel for the petitioner. 8. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the LLMC did not hear the petitioner while taking a decision and hence the principles of natural justice stand violated. The LLMC was bound to hear the petitioner before taking a decision in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association vs. Designated Authority, (2011) 2 SCC 258 . Ext.P10 order is therefore illegal and unsustainable, contended the counsel. 9. The Senior Government Pleader resisted the writ petition and submitted that lie and nature of the land under Block No. 34 Re-survey No. 81/10 and possessed by the petitioner, from the apparent appearance of the property, disclosed that approximately 2 Cents of land has been illegally filled land towards the southern part. The land is kept fallow. But, it is suitable for cultivation of paddy. Approximately 2 Cents of land is illegally filled, towards the southern part and it is partially covered by vegetative cover. A small tree is located towards southern part, approximate age of which is less than ten years. Eastern side of the plot is flowing stream. The land is kept fallow. But, it is suitable for cultivation of paddy. Approximately 2 Cents of land is illegally filled, towards the southern part and it is partially covered by vegetative cover. A small tree is located towards southern part, approximate age of which is less than ten years. Eastern side of the plot is flowing stream. During rainy season, water level of the stream raises normally which creates a flood like situation. Paddy cultivation is carried out every season in the nearby areas of this plot. 10. This Court, in Ext.P8 judgment, has not directed the respondents to extend opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The principles of natural justice have to be applied with reference to the nature of the proceedings. The function being discharged by the LLMC while dealing with an application under the Act, 2008 includes obtaining expert opinion. Such actions are not determinative of rights of the applicants. The LLMC is not discharging any quasi-judicial function. 11. The applicants can extend all justifications when they submit their applications. Detailed procedures are laid down in the Act, 2008 and the Rules, 2008 in the matter of removing land from Data bank. Neither the Act nor the Rules contemplate opportunity of hearing to the applicants. Considering the quantum and nature of duties discharged by the LLMC, it is not possible to extend opportunity of hearing to the applicants, urged the Senior Government Pleader. In the facts of the case, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, submits the Senior Government Pleader. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents. 13. The prime ground urged by the petitioner to impugn Ext.P10 proceedings of the LLMC is that the petitioner was not given notice while inspecting the property and was not heard before issuing Ext.P10 proceedings. Considering the question of compliance of the principles of natural justice in quasi judicial and administrative actions, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association vs. Designated Authority, (2011) 2 SCC 258 held as follows: “58. Considering the question of compliance of the principles of natural justice in quasi judicial and administrative actions, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association vs. Designated Authority, (2011) 2 SCC 258 held as follows: “58. It is thus, well settled that unless a statutory provision, either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of principles of natural justice, because in that event the Court would not ignore the legislative mandate, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences which obviously ocver infraction of property, personal rights and material deprivations for the party affected. The principle holds good irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or Tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial. It is equally trite that the concept of natural justice can neither be put in a strait-jacket nor is it a general rule of universal application. Undoubtedly, there can be exceptions to the said doctrine. As stated above, the question whether the principle has to be applied or not is to be considered bhearing in mind the express language and the basic scheme of the provision conferring the power; the nature of the power conferred and the purpose for which the power is conferred and the final effect of the exercise of that power. It is only upon a consideration of these matters that the question of application of the said principle can be properly determined.” 14. As stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the question of application of the principles of Natural Justice is to be considered bearing in mind the express language and the basic scheme of the provision conferring power, the nature of the power conferred and the purpose for which the power is conferred and the final effect of such power. It is only upon a consideration of these matters that the question of application of the principles can be properly determined. 15. The constitution, powers and functions of the Local Level Monitoring Committee are laid down in Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Section 5 prior to its amendment by the Act 29 of 2018, reads as follows: “5. 15. The constitution, powers and functions of the Local Level Monitoring Committee are laid down in Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Section 5 prior to its amendment by the Act 29 of 2018, reads as follows: “5. Constitution of Local Level Monitoring Committee: (1) There shall be a Level Monitoring Committee in each Panchayat or Municipality, consisting of the members specified in sub-section (2), for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of provisions of this Act. (2) The composition of the Committee shall be as follows: (i) The President or Chairperson/Mayor of the Grama Panchayat or the Municipality or the Corporation, as the case may be. Chairman (ii) The Agricultural Officer/Officers having jurisdiction in the Grama Panchayat or Municipality/Corporation. Members (iii) Village Officer/Officers having jurisdiction in the said area. Members (iv) Three representatives of farmers in the Panchayat/ Municipality/Corporation to be nominated in such manner, as may be prescribed. Members The Agricultural Officer shall be the Convenor of the Committee. (3) The Committee shall have the following powers, namely: (i) Subject to the provisions of this Act, to recommend to the State Level Committee or District Level Authorised Committee, as the case may be, for the reclamation of paddy land, for public purpose or for construction of residential building for the owner of the paddy land: Provided that the Committee shall not recommend for filling of paddy land of more than ten cents in a Panchayat or five cents in a Municipality/Corporation, as the case may be, for the construction of residential building for the owner of the paddy land. (ii) to inspect the paddy land situated within the jurisdiction of the Committee to monitor whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with and to report to the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding violations, if any, of the provisions of this Act. (iii) to examine the complaints received from the public regarding the attempts to violate the provisions of this Act and to intervene in the issue to prevent such violation. (iv) to examine the reason for keeping the paddy land fallow and to suggest remedial measures so as to persuade the holder of paddy land to cultivate it with paddy or any intermediary crops. (iv) to examine the reason for keeping the paddy land fallow and to suggest remedial measures so as to persuade the holder of paddy land to cultivate it with paddy or any intermediary crops. (4) The Committee shall perform the following functions, namely: (i) to prepare the data-bank with the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland, within the area of jurisdiction of the Committee, with the help of the map prepared or to be prepared by the State Land Use Board or Centre-State Science and Technology Institutions on the basis of satellite pictures by incorporating the survey numbers and extent in the data-bank and get it notified by the concerned Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation, in such manner as may be prescribed, and exhibit the same for the information of the public, in the respective Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation Office and in the Village Office/Offices. (ii) to make alternate arrangements under Section 16 where a paddy land is left fallow without taking steps in spite of the instructions given by the Committee under item (iv) of sub-section (3). (iii) to prepare detailed guidelines for the protection of the paddy lands/wetlands in the areas under the jurisdiction of the Committee. (iv) to collect the details of the paddy land within the area of jurisdiction of the Committee, reclaimed in contravention of the provision of any law for the time being in force, before the date of commencement of this Act and to give the report to the Revenue Divisional Officer. (v) to perform such other functions, as may be prescribed from time to time. (5) The quorum for a meeting of the Committee shall be three and it shall meet as when required and the venue for the meeting shall be the respective Panchayat Office the time of meeting shall be fixed by the Chairman. (v) to perform such other functions, as may be prescribed from time to time. (5) The quorum for a meeting of the Committee shall be three and it shall meet as when required and the venue for the meeting shall be the respective Panchayat Office the time of meeting shall be fixed by the Chairman. (6) The Committee may decide the procedure for its meetings and the concerned Agricultural Officer shall keep the proper minutes of the meeting signed by every person attended.” After the amendment effected with effect from 30.12.2017, sub-section (3) of Section 5 reads as follows: “(3) The Committee shall have the following powers, namely: (i) subject to the provisions of this Act, to recommend to the District Level Authorised Committee for the reclamation of paddy land, for construction of residential building for the owner of the paddy land: Provided that the Committee shall not recommend for filling of paddy land of more than an extent of 4.04 Ares in a Panchayat or an extent of 2.02 Ares in Municipality/Corporation area, as the case may be, for the construction of residential building for the owner of the paddy land. (i-A) subject to the provisions of this Act, to report to the State Level Committee for the reclamation of paddy lands for public purpose, within one month from the date of receipt of the application: Provided that the report shall contain the effect of such reclamation on the cultivation in adjoining paddy lands, the measures to be adopted to ensure free flow of water to the adjoining paddy lands, if any and suitable water conservancy measures to be adopted, wherever necessary, and the area where such measures are to be adopted by the applicant. (i-B) the Committee shall not recommend or report under item (i) and (i-A) of sub-section (3) unless the application is accompanied by a sketch of the land proposed to be reclaimed, duly prepared by a qualified surveyor or Village Officer, indicating the extent of land in each survey number for which sanction for filling up the paddy land has been sought. (ii) to inspect the paddy land situated within the jurisdiction of the Committee to monitor whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with and to report to the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding violations, if any, of the provisions of this Act. (ii) to inspect the paddy land situated within the jurisdiction of the Committee to monitor whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with and to report to the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding violations, if any, of the provisions of this Act. (iii) to examine the complaints received from the public regarding the attempts to violate the provisions of this Act and to intervene in the issue to prevent such violation. (iv) to examine the reason for keeping the paddy land fallow and to suggest remedial measures so as to persuade the holder of paddy land to cultivate it with paddy or any intermediary crops.” 16. Section 5 as it stood prior to and after 30.12.2017 empowered the Local Level Monitoring Committee to recommend to the State Level Committee or District Level Authorised Committee for reclamation of paddy land for construction of building. Subsection 4(1) of Section 5 empowers the Local Level Monitoring Committee to prepare Data Bank. The power to remove any land from Data Bank is now vested with the Revenue Divisional Officer. This Court has held in the judgment in Salim C.K. and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2017 (1) KLT 392 that Local Level Monitoring Committee cannot suo motu or on an application correct any error in Data Bank. 17. Therefore, the power of Local Level Monitoring Committee is mainly recommendatory in nature. Its actions do not determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. Sections 13, 20, 23 and 27A of the Act, 2008 require that affected parties should be afforded opportunity of hearing. But, Section 5(4) of the Act, 2008 and Rule 4 of the Rules, 2008 exclude any opportunity of hearing by the Local Level Monitoring Committee before a recommendation is made or decision is taken. Therefore, no interference can be made in Ext.P10 proceedings for the reason that the petitioner has not been extended with an opportunity of hearing. 18. The report dated 20.08.2020 submitted by the Agricultural Officer would show that at present the land is fallow, but is suitable for paddy cultivation. Approximately 2 Cents of land has been illegally filled up. There is a small tree existing on the land which is less than 10 years old. Eastern side of the plot is a flowing stream. Paddy cultivation is carried out in every season in the nearby areas of the petitioner’s plot. 19. Approximately 2 Cents of land has been illegally filled up. There is a small tree existing on the land which is less than 10 years old. Eastern side of the plot is a flowing stream. Paddy cultivation is carried out in every season in the nearby areas of the petitioner’s plot. 19. The Report of the land use change given by the Director, KSREC would state that as per toposheet of 1967, the plot was observed as paddy land. The plot was observed under fallow land in the data of 23.02.2006 and the same land use practices were observed to be continued with, in the data of subsequent years 2010, 2015 and 2017. 20. The petitioner would rely on the judgment of this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another vs. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others, 2020 (2) KHC 94 and would urge that merely because a land is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season, a land cannot be termed as paddy land or wetland. But, in the petitioner’s case, the facts are different. The land was under paddy cultivation in 1967. Though it was found fallow in the year 2006, there is a water stream flowing adjacent to the petitioner’s land. Nearby areas are under paddy cultivation even now. The land of the petitioner was therefore paddy land and it was left fallow only subsequently. 21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no illegality in Ext.P10 proceedings of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The writ petition fails and hence it is dismissed.