IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2011 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13156 of 2011(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. P.T.RAMESH, S/O.P.T.RARICHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT `SAROJ', KOTTOOLI AMSOM, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. P.T.RATHEESH, S/O.P.T.RARICHAN, RESIDING AT `SAROJ', KOTTOOLI AMSOM, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. P.T.RANJITH KUMAR, S/O.P.T.RARICHAN, RESIDING AT `SAROJ', KOTTOOLI AMSOM, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. P.T.RUGMAVATHY, W/O.HARSHAN, EASWARAMANGALAM HOUSE, MANGOTUVAYAL ROAD, PONAKULAM, KOTTOLI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK.673 018. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE.673 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE- 673 001. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTOOLY 673 016. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. R2 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13156 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioners is against Ext.P6 order dated 3.5.2011 issued by the R.D.O., Kozhikode, by which the petitioners are directed to remove the soil deposited in the property lying in R.S.No.5/2A in Kottooly amsom of Kozhikode Taluk. According to the petitioners, the property in question belonged to the petitioners as well as to the 1st respondent and the same is not a wet land as contemplated by the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and Rules. According to the petitioners, Ext.P6 order and the stop memo mentioned therein were issued at the instance of the 1st respondent who is the sister of the petitioners, who are the co- owners also. According to the petitioners, because of the difference of opinion among the co-owners, particularly between the petitioners on the one side and the 1st respondent on the other, the 1st respondent approached the authorities and 2 W.P.(C)No.13156 of 2011 managed to get Ext.P6 order issued. The counsel for the petitioners further submitted that after issuing the stop memo, the petitioners have complied with the same. According to the petitioners, against the stop memo they have filed Ext.P5 objection but thereafter no further steps was taken by the R.D.O. and the petitioners were not even heard, before issuing Ext.P6 order. Under the above circumstances, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that, Ext.P6 is issued behind back of the petitioners and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially in the nature of Ext.P6 order, it appears to me that there was no proper hearing in the matter and there is no reference to any of the contentions put forward by the petitioners, particularly the 3rd petitioner, as per Ext.P5 objection. It is also discernible from Ext.P5 that the petitioners were taken a contention to the effect that the property in question is not covered by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and Rules but there is no finding regarding those vital 3 W.P.(C)No.13156 of 2011 points also in Ext.P6 order. Therefore according to me, it is only just and proper to direct the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter afreshly, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as to the 1st respondent. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P6 order and directing the 3rd respondent to consider the matter afreshly and to pass appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioners as well as any other concerned including the 1st respondent. It is made clear that Ext.P6 order is set aside only to enable the 3rd respondent to pass a fresh order and this Court is not inclined to interfere with Ext.P6 order on merits at this stage. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass appropriate fresh orders within 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which will be produced by the petitioners. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ami/