IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 3635 of 2008(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. RADHAKRISHNAN @ MANIKUTTAN, S/O THANKAPPAN NAIR, ELAYAMURIYIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. SURENDRAN NAIR, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR, PADINJAREDATH HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE,CHANGANACHERRY. 4. SEBASTIAN, S/O VARGHESE, MUTHIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY WEST VILLAGE,CHANGANACHERRY. 5. TESSY SEBASTIAN, W/O SEBASTIAN, MUTHIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY WEST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 6. THANKACHAN, MAILANTHRA HOUSE, KURICHY VILLAGE, MALAKUNNAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 7. THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY. R1 TO R3 & R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.L.G.SURESH BABU R4 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN, SRI.P.REJINARK. R6 BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.3635/2008 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION. P2: COPIES OF THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R6(A): COPY OF THE REVISED ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY. R5(B): COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DTD. 18/03/2010 PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.3635 of 2008 ---------------------------- Dated 18th July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are neighbouring property holders of respondents 4 and 5 who own land in Old Survey Nos.296/3A and 296/2 (Resurvey Nos.1/1/4, 1/1/2, 1/10, 1/11, 1/3, 1/8, 1/1/3, 1/1/1, 1/6, 1/9 and 1/7 in Block No.94 of Vazhappally East Village in Changanacherry Taluk. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 and 7 to take necessary action to prevent the illegal reclamation of the paddy field situated in the aforesaid survey numbers and also to issue appropriate direction to the second respondent to take necessary action on Ext.P1 complaint. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioners is with respect to the alleged illegal filling of paddy field in violation of the Land Utilisation Order, 1967. Taking into account the contentions raised by the petitioners in this writ petition, this Court passed an order on 30.1.2010 directing the first respondent District Collector to conduct an enquiry, under his supervision, through the second respondent RDO, into the allegations in this writ petition and to file a report. In compliance with the said direction a report has been filed by the District Collector along with memo dated 29.9.2010. I will deal with the said WP(C).No.3635/2008 2 report a little later. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 6th respondent wherein he has refuted the allegations levelled against him. He has denied the allegation that he was engaged in reclamation of the property in question. In this context, it is to be noted that even according to the petitioners, the 6th respondent is not having any ownership over the property in question. The report would reveal that respondents 4 and 5 are no more the owners of the property in question. In short, the owners of the property are not before this Court. At the same time, it is to be noted that in the report filed by the District Collector pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 30.1.2010 it is stated thus:- “The RDO reported that one third of the property was reclaimed earlier i.e., more than 15 years ago, and half of the balance portion have been reclaimed on December, 2007, and the balance area was reclaimed on December, 2008. A house, which seems to be built more than 15 years ago and coconut trees seen in this property. Hence it is not practical to issue F form as per the KLU which insists for the auctioning of the land for paddy cultivation.” As is obvious from the aforesaid report 1/3rd of the property was reclaimed more than 15 years ago. Half of the balance portion was reclaimed in December, 2007 and the balance area was reclaimed in December, 2008. After making such a report the District Collector has WP(C).No.3635/2008 3 further stated in the report that appropriate action is being taken by the office to restore the land which is found to have been converted violating the Act 28 of 2008. Thus, going by the report, the District Collector has proposed to take appropriate action in accordance with law. This is recorded. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of recording the said statement. Needless to say that while taking such steps the respondents shall follow the prescribed procedures and the principles of natural justice. In other words, any such action shall be made only with notice to the owner in possession of the property. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS