IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21969 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SATHEESH KUMAR.B., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, VADAKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, PLAVILA, KARAKULAM P.O., KASRAKULAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 541. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE ARIVIKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 564. 4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE, ARUVIKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 564. 5. THE SECRETARY, ARUVIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ARUVIKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 564. 6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21969 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED. EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.7.2010 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 10.9.07 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 20.8.2010 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 12.11.2010 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.11.2010 EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 5.3.2011 EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 8.3.2011 EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL EXT.P10- TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS. (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).21969/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, on the strength of a building permit obtained from the Panchayat when construction of a residential building was started, proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [Act 28 of 2008] were initiated and Ext.P7 show cause notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is stated that, thereafter the District Collector issued Ext.P9 requiring the petitioner to restore the land which is allegedly a paddy field, converted unauthorizedly. It is aggrieved by the above, the writ petition is filed. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land is a garden land and he relies on certain photographs. He also relies on the judgment of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617) to contend that irrespective of the description in the revenue records, what is relevant is the actual state of affairs. W.P.(C).21969/11 2 3. The learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions from the District Collector which show that according to the respondents the land was a paddy filed. It is also submitted before this Court that on being informed of the same, the Panchayat has cancelled the building permit issued to the petitioner. Therefore the dispute is whether the land was actually a paddy field or not. In such circumstances the resolution of the factual controversy is possible only by the fact finding authority. Act 28 of 2008 itself show that revision against the orders passed by the District Collector such as Ext.P8, is possible before the Government. Therefore leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy by way of revision, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs