IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21663 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- UNNIMON,S/O.VELAPPAN, AGED 58 YEARS, VAZHOOKKADAN HOUE, PAZHAYI,PUDUKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 003. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 301. 3. TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, IRINJALAKUDA,THRISSUR DISTRICT-PIN-680 121. 4. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, NENMANIKKARA,CHITTISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-PIN-680 301. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.21663/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PROJECT REPORT FOR FISH FARMING IN THE PETITIONER'S LAND. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 4.11.2010 OF THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 4.11.2010 OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER. P4:- COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IKN 2009 (3) KLT 899. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).21663/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he is the owner of 13 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos.1507, 1522, 1526/1 of Nenmanikkara Village. According to him, in view of Ext.P3 certificate, he is entitled to establish a fresh water prawn culture in the said land after Puncha rice cropping every year. The grievance pleaded in the writ petition is as follows:- “The grievance of the petitioner is that, the respondents 1 to 3 not allowing the petitioner to conduct the fish farming and are interfering with the cultivation of the fish in the aforesaid land owned and possessed by the petitioner. The reason for the said interference to stop the cultivation that the 1st respondent is under the wrong impression and understanding that the aforesaid land is paddy field, since the land is earmarked as a nilam in the revenue records. But the fact remaining that the land is useless as it lye with pit and water logged W.P.(C).21663/11 2 and no paddy cultivation is possible in the said land.” 2. However, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the contention raised by the petitioner. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the grievance raised is anticipatory and unsubstantiated. 3. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to approach this Court as and when respondents pass any order adverse to him. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs