IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7180 of 2009(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- GOSPEL FOR ASIA, MANJADI, THIRUVALLA, MANAGING TRUSTEE DR.DANIEL JOHNSON, REP. THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JACOB POTHEN ITS GENERAL ADMINISTRATOR, LFA, HEAD QUARTERS, MANJADI, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV.MR.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. SRI.VARGHESE ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM, THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, KUTTAPUZHA, THIRUVALLA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MT.V.MANU R3 BY ADV. MR.C.V.MANUVILSAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P .(C) NO.7180/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C4-15525/03 DTD. 20.8.03 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.TP/4403/04 DTD. 4.7.07 FROM THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.11871/07 DTD. 6TH MARCH 2008. P4:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION 17.3.08 BEFORE THE TEHN INCUMBENT OF THE SIT RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(A) 1-3310/08 DTD. 20.1.09. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF TOWN PLANNER DTD. 25.7.07. P7:- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 10.8.07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. .4.4.07 IN WPC. 11871/07. R3(b):- COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER, AS CR. NO.240/07. R3(c):- COPY OF THE MAHAZAR IN CR. NO.240/07. R3(d):- COPY OF THE REGISTERED LEGAL NOTICE DT. 8.6.07 ISUED BY THE PETITIOER IN WPC. 11871/07. R3(e):- COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.C4-3504(1)/07 DTD. 14.6.07 PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. R3(f):- COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.C8.4112.07 DTD. 2.8.07. R3(g):- COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.LR.(A1)5765/07 DTD. 10.8.07. R3(h):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 6.2.07 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER IN WPC. NO.11871/07, UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. R3(i):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A3.536/07 DTD. 2.3.07. R3(j):- COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.C2 7529/07(2) DTD. 11.10.07. R3(k):- COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.C8 4112/07 DTD. 25.3.09. R3(l):- COPY OF THE EVIDENCIN THE RECLAMATION OF PADDY LAND BY THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.7180 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.One Roy Chacko moved this Court and obtained Ext.R3(a) interim order directing that the official respondents in that case shall see that no filling up of paddy lands is carried out by anybody, in violation of the Kerala Land Utilisation order, in the area in relation to which that order is passed. That interim order merged in Ext.P3 judgment, which directs that such order shall stand absolute. Even before that, the petitioner had Ext.P1 order under the KLU order in its favour. On the strength of Ext.P3 judgment, the contesting third respondent took up the matter before the different authorities. That ultimately led to Ext.P5. The Land Revenue Commissioner thereby required the District Collector to look into the question whether Ext.R3(a) interim order and Ext.P3 judgment have been violated. WPC.7180/09 Page numbers 2.This writ petition is filed on the allegation that Ext.P5 was issued without the matter being heard by the officer who issued that order and that the said order is groundless and an unauthorised intervention with Ext.P1. But a close reading of Ext.P5 would show that Ext.P1 has not been set aside by the Land Revenue Commissioner. All that has been done is that the complaint of the third respondent regarding the construction activities of the petitioner relying on Ext.P6 was relegated for re-consideration by the District Collector. 3.Even if I were to keep Ex.R3(a) interim order and Ext.P3 judgment aside, the law is crystal clear; that conversion of a paddy land could not have been carried out in violation of the KLU order and the statutory authorities are obliged to ensure that no illegal act is carried out in violation of the KLU order. Therefore, the mere existence of Ext.R3(a) interim order and Ext.P3 judgment do not by itself change the scenario of the legal incidence that flow from the existence of the KLU order. The petitioners, having obtained Ext.P1 long before Ext.R3(a) WPC.7180/09 Page numbers interim order and Ext.P3 judgment; and Ext.P5 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner not amounting to setting aside Ext.P2; all that has to be done by the District Collector following Ext.P5, is to ascertain whether there was any activity by the petitioner in violation of the KLU order. On the basis of Ext.P1 order, while it may be open to the petitioner to rely on that order and state that construction activity, if any, was in terms of that order, the District Collector is obliged under Ext.P5 only to look into whether the said term has been violated and nothing more. Ext.P1 being the result of a statutory proceedings, there cannot be any de novo enquiry by the District Collector into the matter. With the aforesaid, it is unnecessary that the matter be re-heard by the Land Revenue Commissioner as sought for by the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, while refusing to set side Ext.P5, it is directed that the District Collector will follow Ext.P5, hear the petitioner, the third respondent and any other person entitled to be heard and decide on the matter in the light of WPC.7180/09 Page numbers what is stated hereinabove. Let this process be undertaken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.31/8.