IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5028 of 2007(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P. MANOJ KUMAR, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, CHENGANATTU HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O. 2. K.K. RAJESH, BRANCH SECRETARY, SNDP BRANCH NO.878, MANJAPRA SOUTH, MANJAPPARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.J0Y SRI.C.A.JOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CADA) CHALAKKUDY. 3. THE VICAR, ST.SEBASTIANS CHURCH, SEBIPURAM, MANJAPRA. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R3 SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R3 SRI. M.A. ASIF, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Petitioners Exhibits: Ext.P1: True copy of the complaint dated 15.10.2004 Ext.P2: True copy of the complaint dated 25.1.2006 Ext.P3: True copy of the report dated 20.2.2006 Ext.P4: True copy of the order dated 19.1.2007 /True copy/ P.A. To Judge V.GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 5028 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are residents of the Manjapra Panchayath. They referred to a Command Area Development Authority Canal(CADA), brought into existence for the benefit of the residents of the Manjapra on 1974. They alleged that the church of the 3rd respondent having aproperty on the southern side of the canal had encroached into the canal and blocked the flow of water. The matter was brought to the notice of the District Collector, who directed the Tahsildar to make an enquiry regarding the complaint. Petitioners approached this court vide WP(C)No.28186/2006. This court directed the District Collector to hear the parties and pass appropriate orders. The District Collector passed Ext.P4 Order, whereunder the District Collector entered a finding that there is no material to support the allegations. Ext.P4 has been challenged in the writ petition. WPC. No. 5028 OF 2007 : 2 : 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, the Executive Engineer of the Command Aread Development Authority, Thrissur subject to diversion. The construction work of the canal was completed in the year 1991 and it was handed over to the Beneficiary Farmers Association. Office of the second respondent is now closed and the Asst.Executive Engineer is now in charge. It was understood that a portion of canal was filled and blocked by the 3rd respondent. But the flow of water was otherwise diverted. 3. According to the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, a portion of the area was encroached upon. This is not permissible. No person including the 3rd respondent can be permitted to occupy or encroach into Government land. In the circumstances, the matter requires a reconsideration by the District Collector. The attempt of the District Collector must be to see that encroachment if any, in the canal, is removed. The question is not merely whether the flow of water along the canal can be otherwise diverted or done. WPC. No. 5028 OF 2007 : 3 : 4. Accordingly Ext.P4 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to pass a fresh order as already directed by this court in WP(C)No.28186 of 2006. Such orders shall be passed after hearing both sides within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed as above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) jma