IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 37616 of 2010(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SALAVUDEEN A., S./O. ABDUL RAWTHER, AGED 45 YEARS, CHARURETH VADAKKETHIL, ERUMAKUZHY, NOORANAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANAD. 2. RAVI, KOTTAKKATTUTHARA VEEDU, PAYYANNALLOOR MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, AATHIIKKATTUKULANGARA P.O., PIN - 690 504. 3. RAJAPPAN, AMBALLOOR VEEDU, -DO- -DO-. * 4. ANIL KUMAR, OTTATHENGIL VEEDU, -DO- -DO- *( NAME CORRECTED) PRASANTH, OTTATHENGIL VEEDU, PAYYAMALLOOR MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, AATHIKKATTUKULANGARA P.O., PIN. 690 504. *NAME OF R4 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DTD. 4.1.2011 IN IA.81/2011. *ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. *ADDL. 5TH RESPONDENT IS ARRAYED SUO MOTU IN THE CAUSE TITLE WRIT PETITION AS PER SEPARATE ORDER DTD. 12.1.2011 IN WP(C). tss W.P.(C) NO.37616/2010 *ADDL. R6 TO R8 IMPLEADED 6. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PALAMEL, NOORANAD P.O., PIN 690 504. 7. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAMEL NOORANAD P.O. PIN 690 504. 8. THE PRESIDENT, PALAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALAMEL, NOORANAD P.O., PIN 690 504. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 2.2.2011 IN WPC. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR R1, 5,6 & 7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.37616/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24.3.2009. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 17.3.2010. P3:- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 23.3.2010. P4:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 20.4.2010. P5:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 2.6.2010. P6:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. P7:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 10.10.2010. P8:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT DTD. 20.11.2010. P9:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 20.11.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a):- COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 7.8.2010. R2(b):- COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 17.11.2010. R2(c):- COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 17.11.2010. R2(d):- COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT DTD. 27.12.2010. R2(e):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAMEL. R2(f):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 1.12.2010 FORWARDED BY THE FARMERS TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. R2(g)):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE FARMERS TO THE RDO, CHENGANNUR. R2(h):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE FARMERS TO THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PALAMEL. R2(i):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE FARMERS TO THE SUB INSPECTOR, NOORANAD. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.37616 of 2010-B ***************************** Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the 1st respondent to afford protection to him to facilitate the construction of a building in a property belonging to him, which according to him was being illegally obstructed by respondents 2 to 4. 2. According to the petitioner, he has secured a loan from the State Bank of Travancore as evidenced by Ext.P1. As the Panchayat did not consider his application for building permit favourably, he came to this Court and obtained Ext.P2 judgment in his favour. Later the Panchayat granted Ext.P3 building permit. He secured other requisite permissions from other authorities. As he commenced the construction of the basement in that plot, he was illegally obstructed by respondents 2 to 4 and others. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to afford police protection. W.P(C) No.37616 of 2010-B 2 3. Respondent No.2 entered appearance and opposed the application. According to the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, no police protection is liable to be granted to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent pointed out that Ext.R2(e) stop memo was issued by the Village Officer of the Palamel Village. Suppressing that information, this petition is filed by the petitioner. According to the 2nd respondent, the land in question is land to which the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008 (in short, `the Act') and Rules apply. Without and before proceedings are finalised under the said Act, the petitioner is not entitled to any order of police protection, submitted the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner now fairly accepts that against Ext.R2(e) order, he has preferred a challenge before the District Collector and the same is pending. That challenge has not been disposed of yet, it is conceded. 5. A question arose as to whether the land in question would fall within the sweep of the Act. The District Collector in the first statement filed by him dated 21.01.2011 took the stand that the land is included in the data bank. Later when the statement dated 03.03.2011 was filed, he has taken the stand W.P(C) No.37616 of 2010-B 3 that the land in question is not at present included in the data bank list. 6. According to the 2nd respondent, the land squarely comes within the play of the Act. The draft data bank list has been published. Respondent No.2 as well as farmers of the locality have raised an objection that the land of the petitioner must be reckoned as a paddy land for the purpose of the Act. That question has not been decided finally. Before such question is finally resolved, no order of police protection may be granted, it is submitted. 7. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We particularly take note of Ext.R2(e), which is admittedly under challenge and which challenge has admittedly not been disposed of now. We further take note of the admitted portion that the data bank list has not been finalised and there is a serious dispute as to whether the land in question would fall within the sweep of the Act or not. 8. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is not expedient at this juncture to issue any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner. W.P(C) No.37616 of 2010-B 4 9. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We make it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not fetter the rights of the petitioner to seek identical relief after his challenge against Ext.R2(e) is disposed of and after the data bank list is finalised. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(C) No.37616 of 2010-B 5 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.37616 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 ORDER BASANT, J. Service on the 4th respondent is not complete. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 in part. The question raised is whether the land in question is land to which the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 would apply or not. We deem it necessary that the District Collector, Alappuzha, must be arrayed as a respondent in this proceedings. He is accordingly arrayed as additional 5th respondent. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the additional 5th respondent suo motu. The additional 5th respondent shall file a statement clarifying the stand as to whether the land in question is land falling within the sweep of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. 2. Verify service on the 4th respondent and await the statement of the additional 5th respondent. W.P(C) No.37616 of 2010-B 6 3. Call on 20.01.2011. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/