IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 7300 of 2010(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED, VALAPPIL TACHAYIL HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., CHELAKULAM VIA., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. R.D.O.,MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTIMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTIMATTOM. 7. ABOOBAKER, S/O.MOOSAN, POTHIYIL HOUSE, VILANGA P.O., CHELAKULAM, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL, R7 BY ADVS. SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA, SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.7300/2010-J: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 02/02/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH NEARBY RESIDENTS TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 7300 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is seeking direction to respondents 2 to 6 to take steps to restrain the 7th respondent from filling up paddy land owned by him, in violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 . Petitioner inter alia seeks direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 representation. The allegation of the petitioner is that the 7th respondent who had purchased about 1 Acre of property which is cultivated with paddy is making attempts to reclaim the land and to convert it in violation of the provisions of the above said Act. It is contended that the petitioner along with others submitted Ext.P1 representation in this regard before the 2nd respondent. But inspite of receipt of such representation no action has been taken by respondents 2 to 6 to prevent such illegal activity of the 7th respondent. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent, all the allegations are stoutly denied. On the other hand it is contended that the petitioner had filed this writ petition only with an intention to wreck personal vengeance against the 7th respondent. It is contended that the signatories to Ext.P1 complaint are not persons residing anywhere WPC.7300/2010 2 near to the land in question. However the 7th respondent admitted that he had purchased 16.50 Ares of land and which is cultivated with paddy and other crops and even now the cultivation of paddy and other intermediary crops are going on. The allegation regarding reclamation is absolutely incorrect, is the contention. 3. In view of the rival contentions I do not find any circumstances to issue any specific direction to respondents 2 to 6. However, in view of the undertaking made by the 7th respondent, it is made clear that if any instance of violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 is noticed the petitioner will be at liberty to point out such instance before the appropriate authority, and such authority shall take appropriate steps, if any such activity is done without obtaining permission as required under the relevant statute. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WPC.7300/2010 3 WPC.7300/2010 4