IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1697 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33901/2007 Dated 25/03/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------------- 1. JOSEPH PUTHUPARA, PUTHUPARA HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY. 2. LAJI JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH PUTHUPARA, PUTHUPARA HOUSE, KIDANGAOOR P.O., ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA), SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. T.T.ANTONY, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 66, KALARI THOTTINGA PADAVUPADOM, THEKKINATH HOUSE, VALAVAZHI ROAD, ANGAMALY.P.O. 2. E.A.YOHANNAN, S/O.ANTHAPPAN, AGED 48 YEARS, EARALI HOUSE, VALAVAZHI ROAD, ANGAMALY.P.O. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHI. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK. 5. ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. RAJAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, KORATTU HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY. R3 AND R4 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1697 of 2011 APPENDIX APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-1: COPY OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE 1ST APPELLANT DATED 183.2006. ANNEXURE-2: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.9.2008. ANNEXURE-3: COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED COMISSIONER LAND REVENUE DATED 11.11.2008. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1697 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Appellants herein are the contesting respondents in the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge. The respondents herein were the writ petitioners, who sought for a direction to the concerned authority for the implementation of Exhibit P4 order dated 30.10.2006 by the Revenue Divisional Officer ('RDO', for short) at Kochi. 2. According to the respondents/writ petitioners, in spite of obtaining an order in W.P(C).No.1825 of 2005, no action came to be taken by the RDO. Therefore, the grievance of the writ petitioners remained without any redressal. The learned Single Judge, after referring to the reason why Exhibit P4 came to be passed on the application of the writ petitioners, ultimately directed that the authorities concerned have to comply with the directions as indicated at Exhibit P4. According to learned counsel WA.1697/11 2 for the appellants, by virtue of this direction of the learned Single Judge, the order issued as Annexure A2 would come in conflict with Exhibit P4, therefore, there has to be a clarification. 3. On perusal of Exhibit P4 and Annexure A2, we note that there was a spot inspection on 20.7.2006, which ultimately compelled the RDO to pass orders at Exhibit P4. Subsequent to this order, on 27.9.2008 Annexure A2 came to be issued to one of the appellants directing them to take up paddy cultivation. As per Exhibit P4, the direction was to the Tahsildar to survey the puramboke thodu and as the said area was vested with the local authority, the RDO further directed that a sketch has to be prepared and the Municipality concerned has to be instructed to remove the illegal occupation on the puramboke thodu, if any, so that an action could be taken under clause 7 for violating the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The contents of Exhibit P4 indicate that there is filling up on either side of puramboke thodu by half a meter on one side and one meter on another side. Further no paddy cultivation being taken up on this entire area. On the other hand, there is indication that coconut trees, aged about 20 to 25 years old, were in existence on that day. WA.1697/11 3 4. Apparently, the appellants have challenged Annexure A2 before the Revenue Commissioner, which is pending consideration. The order of the learned Single Judge is only for the implementation of Exhibit P4, which never came to be challenged by the present appellants. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that all the contentions now raised by the appellants could be raised before the Revenue Commissioner. In other words, we make it clear that in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge, the authorities concerned are entitled to remove the encroachments, if any, on the puramboke thodu and so far as the grievance of the appellants with regard to Annexure A2, the Revenue Commissioner is entitled to make an enquiry in accordance with the procedure and pass necessary orders on all issues to be raised by the appellants herein. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE vgs