IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28108 of 2011(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- B.MOHANAN, S/O.P.BHASKARAN, AGED 59 YEARS, SARANAM, THILLERI, KOLLAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE RURAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691 506. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, PIN-691 506. 3. SASIDHARAN.S., ANANDAVIHAR, PADINJATTUMKARA, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691 506. 4. MOHANAN.S., ADIYAZHIKATHU, PADINJATTUMKARA, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691 506. 5. SURENDRAN, ADIYAZHIKATHU PADINJATTATHIL PADINJATTUMKARA, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691 506. 6. AJI, JCB OPERATOR, UGRANKUNNU BHAGOM, PADINJATTUMKARA, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691 506. ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR FOR R3-5 SR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28108 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1678/11 DATED 05/05/11. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 12/05/11. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1-TPL/1959/2011 DATED 23/05/11 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KIP, R.B.DIVISION. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B-9194/2011/KDIs DATED 04/10/11 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 20/10/11. EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION. EXT.P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.28/10/11 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXTS:- EXT.R4(a):- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 24/10/11 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. EXT.R4(b):- A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR AND ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN O.S. NO.541/11 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.28108 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J Petitioner is the owner of 25.53 Ares of property covered under Ext.P1 title deed and Ext.P2 tax receipt. Out of the said property 23 cents were acquired for the purpose of the Kallada Irregation Project (KIP) which had resulted in the remaining property losing road frontage and vehicular access. The petitioner approached authorities of KIP seeking permission for providing motorable access to the remaining property through the land owned by KIP, which was sanctioned through Ext.P3 order issued by the Executive Engineer of KIP. For the formation of the access as permitted through Ext.P3, the petitioner required filling up of land, for which he had approached and obtained Ext.P4 permit from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam. As per Ext.P4 the petitioner was permitted to fill up the land for levelling the W. P. C. No.28108 of 2011 -2- pathway which is to be demarcated by the Village Officer. Consequently, as per Ext.P5, the Village Officer had demarcated the area to be filled up in order to form the pathway. According to the petitioner initially the work of filling up was entrusted to respondents 3 to 6. But there arose some dispute regarding the amount required for such work. When the petitioner attempted to do the filling through alternate arrangements, the respondents 3 to 6 created obstructions and caused threat and intimidation to the life of the petitioner as well as to the workers engaged by him and also threatened to destroy the vehicles brought for reclamation works. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 complaint before the 2nd respondent, no action was taken. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction for affording police protection to the lives of the petitioner and his workers as well as for the works to be done. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 to 5, it is contended that the property in question was already filled up by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, and the W. P. C. No.28108 of 2011 -3- attempt of the petitioner is to create a pathway to the property by reclaiming land of the KIP. It is contended that KIP had constructed the underground canal across the paddy field (“Ela”), in order to preserve and protect paddy cultivation and inspection - wells were also constructed at various points in the paddy field. Contention is that, if Exts.P3 and P4 orders are implemented the water flow in the paddy field will be obstructed and the agricultural operations will become impossible. It is alleged that the Exts.P3 and P4 orders are obtained by the petitioner under undue influence. Further, people in the area have already submitted Ext.R4(a) representation before the District Collector, in which the Collector had ordered an enquiry to be conducted through the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is also stated that the respondents 3 to 5 have filed a suit as O.S.541/11 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara seeking prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner from constructing any road across the paddy field. Ext.R4(b) is the copy of the Commission Report and sketch produced in the said suit. The W. P. C. No.28108 of 2011 -4- respondents also contended that filling up of the land will be in violation of the provisions contained in Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act. 3. Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submitted that there exists a dispute with respect to filling up of the land and formation of the pathway. But it is submitted that the parties have arrived at a settlement with respect to the issue before the 2nd respondent. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, we take note of the fact that the respondents 3 to 5 have already approached competent Civil Court seeking to restrain the petitioner from doing anything as permitted in Exts.P3 and P4. We also take note of the fact that the respondents and other persons in the locality have submitted Ext.R4(a) representation before the District Collector in which an enquiry has already been ordered. However, it is conceded that the Civil Court has not granted any order of temporary injunction, till date. On the basis of the direction issued by W. P. C. No.28108 of 2011 -5- the District Collector, it is a matter which need be looked into by the Revenue Divisional Officer as to whether any modification of Ext.P4 permission is required. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we think it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to keep in abeyance any further activity pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 orders for a reasonable period in order to facilitate the contesting respondents to obtain appropriate relief either from the Civil Court or from any competent authority. But at the same time, we are of the opinion that as long as Exts.P3 and P4 remains valid and as longs as the petitioner is not prevented by any competent court or other authority from implementing those permissions, he should not be restrained through force from enforcing Exts.P3 and P4. 5. Hence, we direct the 2nd respondent to take steps to remove illegal obstructions if any caused against the petitioner filling up the pathway as permitted under Exts.P3 and P4 and to afford protection to such activity, after a period of one month from today, provided no competent civil W. P. C. No.28108 of 2011 -6- court or other authority under any relevant statutes have issued any orders prohibiting such activity or cancelling Exts.P3 and P4 within the said period of one month. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-