IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 25847 of 2009(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- C.A.MOIDEEN KUNJU, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI, CHILAMBITHAYYIL HOUSE, MANNANCHERRY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, MANNANCHERRY. 3. MANNANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE SECRETARY, MANNANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.V.SATHEESH. SRI.A.KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 36200 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25847/2009 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3026/07 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF HIS DAUGHTER SUNITHA RANI. P2: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3027/07 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF HIS DAUGHTER SUMAYYA. P3: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3025/07 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF HIS SON SIYAD. P4: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3024/07 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF HIS SON SAJITH. P5: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 14/01/09 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 7/02/08 IN WP(C) NO.36200/07 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 11/08/09. P8: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD. 19/01/07 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, MANNANCHERRY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.36200/2007 & 25847/2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T In WP(c).No.36200/2007 what is under challenge is Ext.P2, an order issued by the Tahsildar, stating that petitioner had unauthorizedly reclaimed paddy field and therefore should restore the land in to the old position. According to the petitioner, this order was passed without issuing notice to him and without affording him an opportunity to make representations in the matter. In the light of this statement and as Ext.P2 also does not disclose that the order was passed with notice to the petitioner, it has to be held that the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and has to be set aside. 2. In so far as WP(c).No.25847/2009 is concerned, the petitioner's case is that he submitted Ext.P7 representation before the first respondent in terms of the provisions contained in the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, seeking permission for his developmental activities. It is stated that the said application is liable to be considered applying the law laid down by this court in 2009(3)KLT 899. However, respondents WPC.Nos. 36200/07 & 25847/2009 :2 : have raised a plea that such an application has not been submitted. There is nothing on record to indicate that the application has been made. In the light of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions. i. Ext.P2 in WP(c).NO.36200/2007 is set aside with liberty to initiate fresh action in accordance with law. (ii) It will be open to the petitioner to make an application under the provisions of the Act referred to above, before the first respondent for consideration by the 2nd respondent and in which event the application will be considered with notice to the petitioner and in accordance with law. It is directed that if the application is made within 2 weeks from today, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law within 2 months of its receipt. All issues raised in both these writ petitions are left open to be urged and decided by the appropriate authorities. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.Nos. 36200/07 & 25847/2009 :3 :