IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 32045 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.MOHANAN, PADAMBATH HOUSE, BALUSSERY.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 612. BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE-673 020. BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.32045 of 2010 (E) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 20th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of 5 cents of land, which he purchased as per Ext.P1. He made an application for reclaiming the property to make it as a house site. That application was allowed as per Ext.P4 order dated 18/06/2007 specifying one month period for reclaiming the land. 2. Thereafter the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 requesting for extending the period specified in Ext.P4 order. However, he later came to know that the request was rejected. The rejection of his request was the subject matter of WP(C) No. 9087/2010 and the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P12 judgment dated 16/06/2010, setting aside the impugned order and directing that fresh orders shall be passed. 3. Accordingly, Ext.P14 order dated 03/09/2010 was passed by the respondent granting one month period to the petitioner for reclaiming the land, which period is expiring on WP(C) No.32045/2010 -2- 25/10/2010. According to the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P14 order, though he attempted to reclaim the land, members of the DYFI obstructed his work. 4. Thereupon he filed WP(C) No. 30487/2010 seeking orders of Police Protection. It is stated that that writ petition was heard and by Ext.P15 judgment dated 14/10/2010, Police Protection was ordered to be given. 5. In this writ petition, he submits that on account of the aforesaid developments, even during the extended period he could not complete the work, and has approached this Court challenging Ext.P14 order to the extent his request for three months' period was rejected and only one month period was granted. 6. I heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. According to the learned Government Pleader, since the area to be reclaimed is only 5 cents, if the petitioner genuinely wanted, he had more than sufficient time to complete the work. 7. Even though it is true that the area involved is only 5 cents, fact remains that the petitioner could not resume and WP(C) No.32045/2010 -3- continue the work on account of the obstructions caused by members of the DYFI. This contention of the petitioner is fully substantiated by Ext.P15 judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No. 30487/2010. 8. Now that by Ext.P4 order, permission has been granted to the petitioner to reclaim the land, I do not think that any prejudice will be caused to the respondent even if 3 months period sought for by the petitioner is granted. In that view, I am inclined to think that the time sought for by the petitioner ought to have been granted. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of ordering that Ext.P14 order will stand extended by three months from today. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg