IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 1193 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20035/2011 Dated 22/07/2011 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------- 1. ZEENATH SHAMSUDHEEN, W/O.SHAMSUDHEEN,AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUMBANKALLIL HOUSE, VELLAYAMKUDI KARA,KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,VELLAYAMKUDI P.O., 2. HASEENA BEEVI T.S,W/O. K.P. SHAJI, AGED 35 YEARS,RESIDING AT KUMBANKALLIL HOUSE, VELLAYAMKUDI KARA,KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,VELLAYAMKUDI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN SRI.M.VIVEK RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU,IDUKKI-685 603. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM-685 613. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATTAPPANA, PIN-635 508. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. BENNY GERVACIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2011, ALONG WITH W.A.No. 1194 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1193 of 2011 & W.A.No. 1194 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The grievance projected in both these appeals is rather common and therefore dealt with together. The appellants are stated as the owners of the property covered by the title deeds. Based on the permit issued by the concerned local authority, the appellants started construction and the ground floor is almost complete. In the meanwhile, the Village Officer intervened with Exhibit P6 memo, asking the appellants to stop the construction, stating that it was in contravention of the relevant provisions of law, especially involving reclamation of paddy land. 2. The appellants sought to challenge the above proceedings on many of a ground, mainly contending that the Village Officer was having no authority at all to have issued the stop memo. After considering the submissions made by the writ petitioners/appellants, the learned judge ordered the matter to be WA.1193 & 1194/11 2 considered by the District Collector, who is the competent authority under the relevant provisions of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and to have it finalised within six weeks. The appellants contend that the challenge raised against Exhibit P6 ought to have been entertained by the learned Single Judge and hence the appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. The contention of the appellants is that the property is actually a 'Purayidam' and not a wet land or paddy land as stated by the Village Officer in Exhibit P6. It is also stated that the nature of the property has to be ascertained after examining the actual physical condition of the property and not merely on the description in revenue records in view of the law declared by this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009(3) KLT 899). However, going by the contents of the title deeds produced by the appellants themselves, it is evident that the property that is stated as purchased by the appellants has been described as 'paddy land' itself. This being the position, this Court finds that the matter requires to be WA.1193 & 1194/11 3 examined by the competent authority, who is none other than the first respondent. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the matters, giving appropriate direction to the District Collector to have the matter considered and finalised. We see no ground to interfere with the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeals fail and they are dismissed accordingly. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs