IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4175 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SRI.AKBAR ALI KHAN, S/O.V.P.HASSAN KHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KAVANAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL LINES, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685581. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL LINES, IDUKKI-685581. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA-685584. 4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA-685584. 5. SMT.MARY JACOB, W/O.CHACKO, KANIYAMOOZHIYIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK-685584. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) NO. 4175 of 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 24th February , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the unlawful activities being pursued by the 5th respondent with regard to reclamation of the property which is stated as a paddy land, quite contrary to the relevant provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that despite filing Ext.P5 representation before the second respondent, no further steps are being pursued to have it finalised, which made the petitioner to approach this Court. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instruction, submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived in so far as, as per the report of the village officer procured through the Tahsildar, it is seen that the property concerned no more continues to be a paddy land and the surrounding properties are also at a much higher level. It is stated that the issue will be considered and finalised by the W.P.(C) NO. 4175 of 2011 2 second respondent, of course, after hearing all the concerned; more so, in view of Ext. P7 objection stated as preferred by the contesting parties. In the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 in the light of Ext.P7 and such other relevant records and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk