IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11428 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ----------------- K.A.MOOSAN, AGED 53, S/O ABDUL AZIZ, KAROTHUKUDI HOUSE, KANDANTHAR, ALLAPPRA P.O., VENGOLA VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOLA VILLAGE. 5. THE SECRETARY, VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. 6. MR.V.A.ABDUL LATHEEF, VARKKADAN HOUSE, PALLIKKAVALA, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ====================================== WRIT PETITION NO.11428 OF 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 10th day of April 2008 JUDGMENT The allegation in this writ petition is that the 6th respondent is filling up the paddy field without obtaining order under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization order enabling him to convert paddy fields. According to the petitioner, such filling up is done under the cover of Exts.P3 and P4. It is also stated that he has filed Ext.P9 complaint before the District Collector against the reclamation of the paddy field now resorted to by the 6th respondent. 2. Counsel for the 6th respondent submits that there was an old culvert and he could not have any vehicular access through the old culvert. On his representation, Ext.P3 order was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer of Irrigation, and that in terms of which he was authorized to construct a new culvert. It is stated that there was obstruction at that stage and thereupon the 6th respondent approached this Court and police protection was granted by Ext.P4. 3. It is also stated that once the culvert is completed, petitioner wanted to construct a ramp and that again was obstructed. It is stated that when police protection was not extended, he filed a W.P.(C)11428/2008 2 contempt of court case before this court where it was undertaken by the police officials that protection will be extended. It is stated that when he resumed construction of ramp, petitioner made Ext.P9 out of enmity and filed this writ petition. 4. On behalf of the 5th respondent Panchayat, counsel pointed out that under the guise of constructing culvert and ramp what is attempted by the 6th respondent is to make improvements in the paddy field. It is stated that therefore the panchayat has issued a stop memo. 5. I heard the counsel on both sides. At the outset itself, I should clarify that in this writ petition, I do not want to comment on the correctness or otherwise of the stop memo issued by the panchayat and if any stop memo has been issued, it is for the parties to approach the concerned authorities. If the 6th respondent is aggrieved, it is up to him to seek his remedies against the stop memo. 6. As far as the construction of the culvert is concerned, it is not in controversy that the petitioner is entitled to do so, in terms of Exts.P3 and P4. When it comes to the construction of the ramp, though there is controversy between the parties, I do not think that the petitioner should be prevented from doing that, for the reason that if at all, the said act was unauthorized, the authorities of the Minor W.P.(C)11428/2008 3 Irrigation Sub Division would have taken action and therefore the petitioner cannot prevent the same. Petitioner and the Panchayat have a complaint that under the cover of Exts.P3 and P4, the 6th respondent is attempting to fill up the paddy fields. True, as contended, Exts.P3 or P4 does not authorize him to do so. But, however, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent undertakes before me that they are not intending to reclaim any portion of the paddy field. Therefore on the one side, while the petitioner is alleging that the 6th respondent is converting land, the 6th respondent is denying the same. That being a disputed fact, in my view, it is for the second respondent, who is the competent person to verify the same and if there is any truth in what is stated by the petitioner, it is for him to tackle the situation by passing appropriate orders. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/