IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3485 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUNJUMOL JOHN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.JOHN, VARUVIL VEEDU, INCHAKKADU MURI, KALAYAPURAM P.O., KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI.C.R.SYAMMOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND & WETLAND ACT & RULES, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. THANKACHAN, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANDARAVILA VEEDU, VALAKADAVU MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.3485/2010-I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of 5.90 ares of paddy field comprised in Re-survey No.306/20 of Kalayapuram Village. The complaint raised in the writ petition is that the third respondent is now reclaiming adjoining paddy field for making constructions therein. According to the petitioner, any construction by converting the said property will really do harm to the paddy cultivation of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 representation before the second respondent and a direction is sought to the second respondent to take action on Ext.P2 representation. 2. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the third respondent and his wife as joint owners had purchased property having an extent of 12 cents describing as dry land in the year 1978 as per Sale Deed No.3216 of Enathu Sub Registry. That was settled in favour of his son in the year 2009. It is submitted that the property is only a dry land and no paddy cultivation is there. It is also alleged that the petitioner is not cultivating paddy in her property. For construction of building, a permit was issued by the Kulakkada Grama W.P.(C). No.3485/2010-I -:2:- Panchayath after satisfying that the property is a garden land. A true copy of the same has been produced as Ext.R3 (b). It is further pointed out that the petitioner's husband has filed a complaint before the Kottarakara Taluk Legal Service Authority as A.P.No.14/2010 and, therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there cannot be any action on the part of the third respondent to convert the paddy land and this aspect is disputed by the learned counsel for the third respondent stating that there is no cultivation in the property in question or in any of the adjoining properties. Nobody is cultivating paddy now. 4. Whether there is any conversion of paddy field etc, is a matter for the second respondent to consider. This Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009 (3) KLT 899] has taken the view that mere description of property as nilam or wet land, in the revenue records, is not conclusive and, the actual fact situation as they exist today will have to be considered by the authorities while considering disputes like this. In that view of the matter, the second respondent will consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders after affording W.P.(C). No.3485/2010-I -:3:- all opportunity to the petitioner and the third respondent to file their statements and after conducting due enquiries either by himself or through any other officers within a period of three months. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms