IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37379 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.GEORGE ABRAHAM, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM, SANGARAMANGALAM TOWERS, THIRUVALLA. 2. OMANA GEORGE, W/O.M.GEORGE ABRAHAM, SANGARAMANGALAM TOWERS, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 4. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT. WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THIRUVALLA MUNICIPAL AREA REP. BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA, KRISHI BHAVAN, THIRUVALLA. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 37379/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.3.2.97. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.28.5.97 BY R3. P3. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.18.2.2000. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 6731/2007. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge . S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 37379 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim to be the owners of certain properties. The petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged action of the Principal Agricultural Officer, Tahsildar and Village Officer for the alleged interference with the enjoyment of the properties of the petitioners purportedly in exercise of powers under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act. The petitioners seek the following relief; “Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents not to enter into or conduct agricultural operations in properties of petitioners covered by Exhibit P1 directly or indirectly in exercise of powers.” 2. So far no action has been taken against the petitioners. I have no reason to believe that the respondents would take action without complying with the procedure prescribed under the Act. When notice is issued in respect thereof, it is perfectly open to the petitioners to raise their contentions in answer to the same. The competent among the respondents can pass final orders in the matter only after hearing the petitioners. If any adverse order is passed, the petitioners have got an alternate remedy by way of revision before the Government. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Therefore, leaving the petitioners to seek their w.p.c.37379/09 2 remedies as and when an adverse order is passed, this writ petition is dismissed. However, I direct the respondents to take further action only after issuing a notice to the petitioners and hearing them. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge