IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9131 of 2011(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOSE M.M., AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, MATHEW VIHAR, PUTHUPALLIPRAM, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ELOOR VILLAGE, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 240. 4. ELOOR PANCHAYAT, REP. BY SECRETARY, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 240. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9131 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the development of the petitioner's land covered by Ext.P1 by raising the level of land under the guise that the above said land is a paddy land. ii) Issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court. Iii) Award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by the respondents interfering with the possession and utilisation of the land by the petitioner referring to some or other provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddyland and Wetland Act 2008 is not correct or sustainable. The petitioner contends that the property has never been put for paddy cultivation for more than four decades and that the petitioner is entitled to have the property used as a 'dry land' which is fact is a 'dry land' as evident from the photographs produced. 3. Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well, who points out that the appropriate authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner is none other than the R.D.O and that the petitioner has not chosen to implead the R.D.O. W.P.(C) No.9131/2011 - 2 - 4. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned R.D.O by filing necessary applications seeking for necessary reliefs; on which event, appropriate orders shall be passed thereon as expeditiously as possible. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE vdv