IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4541 of 2011(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VALIYAKATH MUHAMMED NAZARUDDIN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ENU HAJI, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680001 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680001 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR-680506 4. THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR-680506 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680506 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.4541 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:- a) Call for the records leading up to Ext.P10 and issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P10 order passed by the 1st respondent. b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent. c) Declare that the powers invoked by the 1st respondent under Sec.13 of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008 is without authority, in the absence of the constitution of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the preparation of the Data Bank by such committee. d) Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P10 order passed by the 1st respondent / District Collector invoking the power under Section 13 of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008 is not correct or sustainable and W.P.(C)No.4541 OF 2011 2 that it requires intervention by this Court on the grounds stated in the writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. It is very much evident from Ext.P10 itself, that the said order was passed by the 1st respondent / District Collector, after hearing all the parties concerned, particularly, the complainant N.K.Akbar and others. While challenging the said order, the petitioner has not chosen to implead the said Akbar or anybody else shown in the order, as parties to this writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further, this Court finds that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy available under Section 28 of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. 5. In the said circumstances, interference is declined. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy as aforesaid. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dmb