IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 38245 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SABU PAUL, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE, KANNANGAYATH, MANEED VILLAGE, KAROOR KARA, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SMT.RENI RASHEED, SMT.D.MINI RAJAN, SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM – 682 020. 3. R.D.O.MUVATTUPUZHA – 689 642. 4. TAHISILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA – 689 642. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAVOM – 689 612. 6. C.I.OF POLICE, PIRAVOM – 689 612. 7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIRAVOM – 689 612. *ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 IMPLEADED: 8. A.P. JOY, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. PAILY, SECRETARY, NADAKKADA VANNILAM PADASEKHARA NELLULPADAKA SAMITHI (REG.NO.ER1110/90), KAKKADU, PIRAVOM, RESIDING AT EDAYAKKATU PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KAKKADU.P.O., PIRVOM, PIN 686 664. W.P.(C). NO.38245/2010-E: 9. N.V. JOHN, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, RTD. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA TEACHER, RESIDING AT NELLICKAL HOUSE, KAKKAD.P.O., PIRAVOM, PIN – 686 664. *ADDL. R8 AND R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 20/01/11 IN I.A. 711/11. R1 TO R7 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU, ADDL. R8 & R9 BY SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN, SMT.VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.38245/2010-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS DTD. 15/12/2010. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAVOM. EXT.P.3: REPORT FILED BY THE R.4. DTD. 16/10/2009. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAVOM DTD. 17/02/2010. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 16/01/2010. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).5531/2010 DTD. 19/02/2010. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 02/06/2010. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 04/10/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R8.A: COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DTD. 20/04/2009. EXT.R8.B: COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DT.D 05/10/2009. EXT.R8.C: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 29/11/2009. EXT.R8.D: COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE R.9 TO THE R.D.O, MUVATTUPUZHA AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EKM, AGAINST THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES DONE BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 03/10/2009. EXT.R8.E: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE R.3 – RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA DTD. 25/11/2009. EXT.R8.F: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.35609/09 DTD. 12/01/2010. EXT.R8.G: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.3- RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA DTD. 24/01/2009. EXT.R8.H: COPY OF THE REPORT OF RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA TO R.2. 01/01/2010. EXT.R8.I: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAVOM, DTD. 16/10/2009. EXT.R8.J: COPY OF THE REPORT OF AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PIRAVOM NO.7648 DTD. NIL. W.P.(C). NO.38245/2010-E: EXT.R8.K: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.2. NO. L-5-71602/09 DTD. 16/01/2010. EXT.R8.L: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L-5-71602/09 ISSUED TO THE R6 BY THE R.2. DTD. 16/01/2010. EXT.R8.M: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE R9 BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 20/01/2010. EXT.R8.N: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE R.9 DTD. 21/01/2010. EXT.R8.O: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 (VILLAGE OFFICER, C.I OF POLICE, PIRAVOM & SI OF POLICE, PIRAVOM), DTD. 21/01/2010. EXT.R8.P: COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE R.D.O DTD. 04/05/2010. EXT.R8.Q: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE R.D.O, MUVATTUPUZHA DTD 29/04/2010. EXT.R8.R: COPY OF THE ORDER OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT DTD. 20/12/2010. EXT.R8.S: COPY OF THE FIR NO.145 OF THE PIRAVOM POLICE STATION DTD. 15/05/2011. EXT.R.8(S-1): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH DTD. NIL. EXT.R.8(S-2): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH DTD. NIL. EXT.R.8(S-3): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH DTD. NIL. EXT.R8.T: COPY OF THE FIR NO.148 DTD. 16/05/2011. EXT.R8.U: COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE MANORAMA NEWSPAPER DTD. 16/05/2011. EXT.R8.U(1): COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE MATHRUBHUMI NEWSPAPER DTD. 16/05/2011. EXT.R8.U(2): COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE MANORAMA NEWSPAPER DTD. 17/05/2011. EXT.R8.U(3): COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE MANORAMA NEWSPAPER DTD. 19/05/2011. EXT.R8.U(4) COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE MATHRUBHOOMI NEWSPAPER DT.D 19/05/2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).38245/2010 .............................................. Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P8 order passed by the second respondent on 4.10.2010, whereby the proceedings issued earlier giving a positive direction to the petitioner to restore the nature of the property concerned (allegedly charged by the activities pursued by the petitioner contrary to the relevant provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008), is ordered to be implemented. The sequence of events is as follows:- 2. The petitioner, who is stated as the owner of the property situated in Survey No.622/3C and some other extent in Survey No.646/2 of Piravom Village, enjoying the same with effect from 2004 with absolute ownership, clear title and exclusive possession and running a tile industry making use of sand/clay procured and stored in the above land, was served with a notice asking him to restore the land as 'paddy land'. This was challenged by filing W.P.(C).5531/2010 which culminated in Ext.P6 judgment. The contention raised by the petitioner before this Court was that the land, though described as 'nilam' in the W.P.(C).38245/10 2 revenue records, was actually a 'dry land' where no agricultural operation was being pursued for more than 1 ½ decades and that the impugned notice was issued only at the instance of some local public nurturing personal animosity with the petitioner. It was also stated that, on receipt of such notice, petitioner filed a statement of objections which, however, was not considered and hence challenged in the above writ petition. 3. After hearing both the sides, the above writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment dated 19.2.2010, wherein it was observed as follows:- “Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 memo issued by the District Collector under the Act 28 of 2008 directing him to take appropriate steps to effect paddy cultivation after restoring the position of the property. The petitioner has already filed Ext.P5 objection in the matter seeking for a proper enquiry after conducting a local inspection also” Accordingly, the District Collector was directed to take a decision on the statement of objections preferred by the petitioner W.P.(C).38245/10 3 (produced and marked as Ext.P5 therein), after hearing the parties and after conducting local enquiries directly or through the revenue officers within the period as specified therein; simultaneously directing to keep the impugned proceedings as per Ext.P4 therein to be kept in abeyance. The petitioner was permitted to carry out the normal activities in the property concerned. 4. Pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment, Ext.P7 notice was issued by the second respondent on 2.6.2010 inviting the petitioner for a hearing. The case now put forth by the petitioner is that, though the petitioner turned up on receipt of notice, instead of hearing the matter by the District Collector, the petitioner was relegated to approach the ADM and on reaching the chamber of ADM, the matter was sought to be finalised without hearing the version and it was thereafter, that Ext.P8 order was passed by the second respondent on 4.10.2010, whereby the early decision forming the subject matter of Ext.P6 was sought to be enforced which in turn, is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. During the pendency of the above proceedings, the nearby residents of the locality sought to get impleaded as additional W.P.(C).38245/10 4 respondents 8 and 9 and have filed I.A.No.2893/2011 seeking to vacate the interim order of stay already granted by this Court. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed by the said respondents, producing copies of the relevant documents in support of their contentions, pointing out that the activities being pursued by the petitioner are quite detrimental to the health of the nearby residents. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit as well. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 7. After hearing both the sides and on going through the materials on record, it seems that there is serious dispute with regard to the actual facts and figures. Primary question to be considered is whether Ext.P8 order passed by the second respondent is in conformity with Ext.P6 judgment. If so, whether any interference is to be made in view of the disputed facts. 8. As mentioned herein before, when the challenge was raised by the petitioner on an earlier occasion, referring to the statement of objections filed, on receipt of Ext.P4 memo mentioned in W.P.(C).5531/2010, the said objection was directed W.P.(C).38245/10 5 to be considered and finalized after hearing the parties and after conducting local inspection directly or through the revenue officials. It is seen from Ext.P8 that some report was called for by the second respondent from the RDO, who submitted the same on 14.6.2010. But it is totally obscure to infer from Ext.P8, as to the contentions raised by the petitioner in the statement of objections filed in response to Ext.P5 memo herein (which was produced as Ext.P4 in the earlier writ petition). There is no reference to the said statement of objections anywhere in Ext.P8, nor has it been discussed in the said order. This being the position, the direction given by this Court earlier in Ext.P6 judgment to consider the said objection and to take a decision, does not appear to have been complied with. But for the reference made to the reports submitted by the revenue authorities, nothing else has been discussed by the second respondent while passing Ext.P8. At the same time, it is relevant to note that the petitioner has got a case with reference to Ext.P4 and such other materials that the land in question did no longer continue to be a 'paddy land' and that, it was not fit for any agricultural operations. This Court finds that Ext.P8 order passed by the second respondent is not in conformity with Ext.P6 verdict. As such, it is liable to be re-considered. The same is W.P.(C).38245/10 6 ordered accordingly. Ext.P8 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass a 'speaking order', after hearing all the parties concerned. In view of the serious disputes raised in this writ petition by the additional respondents 8 and 9, it is open for the said respondents as well to present their case when the matter is finalized by the second respondent as aforesaid. Proceedings as above, shall be finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 9. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and such other materials including the I.A and the version filed by the additional respondents 8 and 9, before the second respondent for further steps. 10. In the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader that, though an interim order of stay was passed by this Court on 22.12.2010 and it was extended on 23.2.2011 for a period of one month, it happened to be expired which made the petitioner to file I.A.No.7632/2011 for revival and extension. This Court, as per W.P.(C).38245/10 7 order dated 26.5.2011, directed to maintain 'status quo' in the said I.A for a period of one month. The learned Government Pleader submits that, after the expiry of the interim order and before granting the order of 'status quo' on 26.5.2011, Ext.P8 order has been implemented to some extent. In the said circumstances, this Court orders that the 'status quo' as ordered by this Court on 26.5.2011 will continue till the proceedings are finalized afresh by the second respondent, as aforesaid. It is made clear that this Court has not discussed the merits of the case, nor has expressed any opinion in either way. Writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs