IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14675 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.DESAI HOMES, 40/7669 C 40, FIRST FLOOR, DD VASTRA MAHAL, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.V.R.DESAI. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695043. 2. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, LMS VELLAYAMBALAM ROAD, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANGAPPARA VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695028. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SC SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).14675/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is stated as a Builder, is aggrieved of Ext.P7 notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as well as Ext.P9 notice issued by the second respondent/Corporation asking the petitioner to submit explanation, if any, lest further proceedings should be pursued in view of the violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. In Ext.P7 notice, there is a further direction, whereby the petitioner has been asked to stop all the construction activities and also to restore the land forthwith, which made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for appropriate reliefs. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are, per se wrong and illegal in all respects, in so far as, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 referred to as the basis for issuance of notice, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was earlier served with Ext.P5 notice dated 29.6.2008 , under clause 4.1 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, which was W.P.(C).14675/11 2 duly replied by the petitioner by submitting Ext.P6 on 18.7.2008. Ext.P7 notice was issued about three years thereafter, by the concerned RDO on 17.3.2011, which was also replied as per Ext.P8 dated 2.4.2011. So also, on receipt of Ext.P9 show-cause notice issued by the second respondent on 2.5.2011, the actual facts and figures were explained by submitting Ext.P10 on 13.5.2011 and they are pending consideration. With reference to Ext.P11 photographs, the learned counsel submits that, construction is almost complete and the remaining works are in no way connected with the structure as revealed there from. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made a submission before this Court that the building permits were issued to the petitioner, as borne by Exts.P2 and P3, on 4.7.2008 and 27.4.2008 respectively and this being the position, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act which took its breath for the first time only from 12.8.2008, cannot place any bar or hurdle on the way of the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, as well as the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent. W.P.(C).14675/11 3 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the proceedings are to be finalized by the concerned authorities and that the same will be considered and final orders will be passed, within the shortest possible time. 5. In the above circumstances, since the matter is pending consideration before the concerned authorities, this Court does not find it necessary to deal with the merits of the case, for the time being. The first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P8 reply submitted by the petitioner in response to Ext.P7 notice, and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The second respondent shall consider the facts and circumstances as explained in Ext.P10 submitted in response to Ext.P9 notice and the issue shall be finalized, after getting the version of the RDO, pursuant to the finalization of Ext.P7 proceedings which shall be done within a further period of one month, thereafter. Coercive proceedings if any, shall be kept in abeyance for the time being, till the proceedings are finalized as above. W.P.(C).14675/11 4 6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before respondents 1 and 2 for taking further steps. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs