IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 22457 of 2011(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PURUSHAKKARI NADUBHAGAM KARSHAKA SANGHAM, REG.NO.A-36/1979, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI.K.P.VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O.PRABHAKARA KARTHA, AGED 64, PREETHI NIVAS FROM KOTTIPALLIL, KODAMTHURUTHU VILLAGE, EZHUPUNNA SOUTH P.O., CHERTHALA - 688 550. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KODAMTHURUTH, KUTHIATHODU P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA - 688 533. 4. KODAMTHURUTH VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, KODAMTHURUTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 533. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED SHAH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.22457/2011-F: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10/03/2006 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27/01/2006 IN W.P.(C).NO.26840/2004. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/09/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10/08/2007 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 30/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 30/03/2011 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ONE BABU. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.7.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE:- ANNEXURE R3.A: COPY OF A COMPLAINT ON 21/04/2010 SUBMITTED TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 22457 of 2011 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 issued by the Agricultural Officer, the third respondent, requiring the petitioner to cut open a bund. Reading of this order shows that such a direction was issued based on the suggestion in that behalf made by the second respondent. 2. Case of the petitioner is that they have been in possession of a puramboke thodu for several years and that an assignment application made by them was rejected by Ext.P3. It is stated that an appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by Ext.P4 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner with liberty to the petitioner to use the thodu in question. It is stated that, based on the above, they have been using the thodu for several years and that it was while so, for no reason whatsoever, Ext.P7 order has been issued requiring them to cut open the bund. It is stated that if that W.P.(C) No.22457/2011 : 2 : happens, the agricultural operations will be affected and that the area will be flooded. 3. However, a statement has been filed by the third respondent. In the statement, it is stated that, in violation of Ext.P4 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner, the petitioner refused to cultivate the paddy field in the area and that owners of the paddy fields submitted several complaints, including Ext.R3(a), to various authorities. It is stated that, based on receipt of the complaints, enquiry was conducted by the third and fourth respondents and then it was revealed that the thodu in question was utilised for fish culture by other contractors of the petitioner and no paddy cultivation was carried out by the petitioner for several years. It is further stated that the petitioner and the contractor have constructed bunds on different locations in the thodu obstructing the natural flow of water and that, therefore, paddy land owners in the area are unable to cultivate paddy. It is stated that it is in these circumstances Ext.P7 was issued. W.P.(C) No.22457/2011 : 3 : 4. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner disputing the averments in the statement. 5. Thus, while on the one hand petitioner contends that the paddy cultivation is being conducted on the strength of Ext.P4, the respondents contend that there is no paddy cultivation, that the thodu in question is used by the contractors appointed by the petitioner for fish culture and bunds have been constructed obstructing the free flow of water. 6. In my view, these are disputed questions of fact which are incapable of resolution in a writ petition. That apart, if what is stated by the respondents are factually correct, they cannot be faulted for the order that has been issued. In these circumstances, this is not a dispute which is capable of resolution in writ petition and, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/27/10