IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 4867 of 2007(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MANUAL JACOB, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. JACOB, PICHAPPILLIL, KADAVUR P.O., PUNNAMATTAM. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAVUR. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLOORKAD POLICE STATION. 7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHANICAD POLICE STATION. 8. JOSE ULAHANNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ULAHANNAN, THANNITTAMAKKAL HOUSE, VENGACHODE, MANJALLUR VILLAGE, VAZHAKULAM. ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P SRI. V. TEK CHAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4867/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27/1/2007 SUBMITTD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF STOP MEMO DATED 27/1/2007 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 30/1/2007. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/1/2007 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TO THE POLICE OFFICERS. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE pac P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4867 OF 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is against the alleged filling of wet land by the eighth respondent, contrary to the provisions of law including the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The petitioner contends that the course pursued by the eighth respondent has made the property belonging to the petitioner which is situated very near to the property of the eighth respondent non-cultivable, causing flooding of water, which made him to file Ext.P1 petition before the fifth respondent, leading issuance of Ext.P2 stop memo. It is seen that a further complaint was filed by the petitioner before the third respondent as borne by Ext.P3, seeking for his immediate interference. The petitioner also places reliance on Ext.P4 report submitted by the fourth respondent/Thahsildar to the sixth respondent/C.I. of Police confirming the alleged atrocious action pursued by the eighth respondent in filling up the land even contravening the 'stop memo' issued in this regard and hence requesting to take appropriate action to intercept such W.P.(C) No.4867 of 2007 2 illegal filling of the land. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this court on 13.02.2007, instructions were called for from the sixth respondent as to the action taken on the basis of Ext.P4. The submission made by the learned Government Pleader, after getting instructions was recorded on 15.02.2007, observing that crime No.11/2007 has already been registered in respect of the alleged offence and investigation is going on. It has also been observed that pursuant to the 'stop memo' and in view of the strict police vigilance, no further filling up of the land is being carried out in the property in question. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the position continues as such and that no further filling of the land is being pursued. The learned counsel for the eighth respondent submits that no such step will be pursued without getting necessary sanction from the appropriate authorities concerned, if at all any filling is intended. 4. In the above circumstances, it is not necessary to get into the merits of the case, but for making it clear that the concerned respondents will ensure that no unauthorised filling W.P.(C) No.4867 of 2007 3 of the paddy land is permitted or effected by the eighth respondent in the property in question. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, without prejudice to the right of the parties to pursue appropriate remedies before the appropriate authorities, if and when necessitated. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE pac