IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23623 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SIMON S/O.ITTOOP, VADAKKUMCHERY, ASTHAMICHIRA PO, MALA, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE,MALA. 3. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AGRICULTURE OFFICE, THRISSUR. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 5. E.T.DEVASSI, S/O.CHANGAN THOMAN,EDASSERY, PALAYAMPARAMBU,MALA. 6. E.D.SALU, S/O.E.T.DEVASSI, EDASSERY, PALAYAMPARAMBU,MALA. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN FOR R5 SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R6 SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R6 SRI.A.C.DEVY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23623 of 2009(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- Ext.P1 : Photographs evidencing lie of paddy field and new construction. Ext.P2 : Information given under R.I.Act by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3 : Representation before the respondents 1 to 4 dtd.nil Ext.P4 : Representation submitted by the residents of Mala Grama Panchayats. Ext.P5 : Representation submitted by the petitioner before the respondents 1 to 4 dtd.5/8/2009 Ext.P5(a) : Receipt issued by 1st respondent Ext.P5(b) : Receipt issued by 2nd respondent Ext.P5(c) : Receipt issued by respondent No.4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Ext.R5(1) : Order No.C83/0910), dtd.20/05/2009 Ext.R5(2) : Photographs of the relevant area of land (captured on 23/8/2009) Ext.R6(a) : Judgment in W.P.(C)No.14357/08 dtd. 11/6/2008 Ext.R6(b) : Complaint filed by the owner of Thomson Tile Factory Ext.R6(c) : Complaint filed by the owner of St.Francis Ceramics Ext.R6(d) : Complaint filed by the owner of St.Mary's Tile Works. Ext.R6(e) : Complaint filed by this respondent before the Supnt. of Police. Ext.R2(a) : Judgment in W.P.(C).No.14357/2008 dtd.11/6/2008 of this Hon'ble Court. True copy P.A.to Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.23623 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein seeks for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to look into the grievances voiced in Exts.P3 to P5 and take immediate action as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 within a time limit. The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist and he is cultivating paddy in Ashtamichira Padasekharam. The petitioner submits that respondents 5 and 6, without obtaining any orders either under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 or under the new Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, have reclaimed about four acres of paddy land and started constructing a 4000 sq.feet residential building. The main complaint raised in this writ petition is that this will cause obstruction to the flow of water in the area, thereby causing difficulties to the agricultural operations. 2. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the 5th and 6th respondents. The second respondent Panchayat has also filed a counter affidavit. The contention raised by the 5th and 6th W.P.(C)No.23623 of 2009 2 respondents is that the petitioner is neither a farmer nor a person having possession of even a Cent of land in the Ashtamichira Padasekharam. It is stated that this writ petition is filed without any bonafides. The 5th respondent has produced documents in support of the plea that the property in Sy.Nos.240 and 241/1 of Vadakkumbhagam Village was purchased in the year 1997, and it was not an agricultural land or nilam. The allegation that the 5th respondent has reclaimed the land is specifically denied in the counter affidavit. The allegation that the flow of water is obstructed, is also denied by the 5th respondent. In the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent also it is pleaded that the said respondents have started construction of a building in a property within the limits of Mala panchayat, after obtaining the necessary permit from the second respondent. The 6th respondent had earlier approached this court by filing W.P.(C)No.14357 of 2008 which is evidenced by Ext.R6(a) Judgment. Only after Ext.R6(a), Panchayat had granted permit to construct the building. It is pointed out the construction is nearing completion. The property wherein the W.P.(C)No.23623 of 2009 3 construction is being made is fully developed garden land, as early as in 1992. The 6th respondent has also pointed out that the petitioner has no bonafides in filing this writ petition and various incidents have been referred to in the counter affidavit. 3. The stand of the Panchayat is also revealed from the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Panchayat itself. It is pointed out that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C)No.14357 of 2008, the permit for the construction of the building was granted. It is submitted that the 6th respondent did not create any obstruction, whatsoever, to the flow of water through the water chal to the common drainage, or to the paddy cultivation in the Cheral padesekharam. The second respondent has also pointed out that the petitioner is not possessed any land, to the knowledge of this respondent, in the Ashtamichira Padesekharam. The second respondent apprehend that the above Writ Petition is an off shoot of rivalry by the petitioner against 5th and 6th respondents, as they are the business men in the locality and the business vengeance is reflected in the Writ Petition. W.P.(C)No.23623 of 2009 4 4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the 5th respondent is in possession of 80 cents of garden land and his wife is also having a property 99 cents in extent which is a paddy field. It is also pointed out that the 6th respondent was granted building permit by the Panchayat. The direction as sought for by the petitioner cannot be issued by this Court in the light of the various aspects pointed out by the respondents herein. It is clear from the averments made by the Secretary in his affidavit that when the 6th respondent applied for building permit, he himself did not accept the application, stating that the revenue records revealed that it is a paddy filed (Nilam) and an order from the Revenue Divisional Officer is necessary. The permit was issued in the light of the directions issued in Ext.R2(a) judgment. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show that he has his own paddy field to prove his bona fides. The provisions of the Act could be invoked by any person interested to point out violations, or by any member of the public but having bona fides only. But it cannot be misused to seek vengeance against persons against whom animosity is W.P.(C)No.23623 of 2009 5 there. Going by the averments in the counter affidavit and the stand taken by the official respondents it can be seen that the 5th and 6th respondents have made the constructions, if any, only in respect of properties which were filled up long back. They have obtained permission also for these constructions. None of the provision of the Act have been pointed out to justify the plea to redo the entire thing at this distance of time. 5. Therefore the directions sought for as such in this writ petition cannot be granted. But this will not deprive right of the petitioner if he is a bona fide cultivator of paddy, to point out filling up of any paddy land in the area in violation of the Provisions of the Act. With liberty to do so the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj