IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27753 of 2010(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JOSE THOMAS, NADAKKUZHACKAL HOUSE, TRIVENI ROAD, NEAR MANGHATTU KAVALA, THODUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL SRI.JOSE MATHEW (KAVALAKALAM) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- ---- 1. JAISON, S/O.DEVASSIA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ARACKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTAM KARA CHURULI BHAGAM, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. MANI, S/O.KRISHNAPILLA, THACHUKUZHYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTAM KARA, CHURULI BHAGAM, KANJIRAMATTAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 3. VINOD, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PATTYAPARAMBIL, KANJIRAMATTAM KARA, CHURULI BHAGAM, KANJIRAMATTAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 4. PRAMOD, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, MADATHIPPARAMBIL, KANJIRAMATTAM KARA, CHURULI BHAGAM, KANJIRAMATTAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 5. SABU, S/O.KUMARAN, MUZHUVALLIYIL, KANJIRAMATTAM KARA, CHURULI BHAGAM, KANJIRAMATTAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 6. KUMARAN MUZHUVALLIYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTAM KARA, CHURULI BHAGAM, KANJIRAMATTAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 7. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA. 8. S.I.OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA. R1 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.TOMY R7 & R8 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27753/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DTD. 30.4.10. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.16647/10 DTD. 9.6.10. P3:- ORDER PASSED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 19.8.10. P4:- PETITION SUBMITTED TO DY. S.P. THODUPUZHA DTD. 24.8.2010. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.27753 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioner claims that he is the owner of an extent of property which is stated to be a rubber plantation. That has reached a stage of felling of the old rubber trees. He says that he wanted to fill the said land with more soil to bring the same up to the road level, however, that the private respondents started to obstruct on the premise that the BT register showed the land as wet land. The petitioner has obtained orders from the revenue authorities, including the District Collector, to the effect that the land in question does not fall within the trappings of the Conservation of Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Act. 2.The private respondents appear through counsel and seek adjournment for filing counter affidavit. When asked the WPC.27753/10 2 learned counsel for the private respondents as to the nature of the defence, it is stated that the land of the petitioner lies admittedly at a level lower than the public road and the private respondents have lands still beyond the land of the petitioner and if the petitioner raises the level of his land, that would prevent the flow of water to the lands of the private respondents. We do not express anything on that. 3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents also state that there were some deliberations before the police and consensus was arrived at, some time that a passage for water would be provided by the petitioner. This is also not a matter to be considered in the writ jurisdiction. Taking the rival stands into consideration, it is ordered that the police officials will provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner, however, that the private respondents will be entitled to seek relief, either in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the District Magistrate or from the competent WPC.27753/10 3 civil court, regarding their alleged right to have water flow through the land of the petitioner. Since the land claimed by the petitioner admittedly belongs to him, it is ordered that if no interim orders are issued by any competent authority within a period of 45 days from today, the appropriate police official will provide protection to the petitioner to fill up the land as he may desire, however, without any equity working in his favour in any litigation that the private respondents may initiate as indicated above. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.14/09.