IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 1516 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.7656/2008 Dated 06/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- K.RAJENDRAN, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI THE CONVENER, SADHU HABA SEVANA SAMITHI CHAKKULATHAMMA, SANJEEVANI ASRAMAM CHARITABLE TRUST, PATHANAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM 4. DR.V.K.JAYAKUMAR, MANAGER, SABARI GIRI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUNALUR. R1 TO R3 BY SR.G.P. SMT.K.MEERA ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA FOR R4 SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R4 SRI.M.R.ANISON FOR R4 SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI FOR R4 SRI.P.S.ABHISHEK FOR R4 SMT.KAVYA P.PRASAD FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1516 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting appellant's challenge against filling up of paddy field by a School for the purpose of the School, which itself is done after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities. 2. We have heard counsel for the appellant. Admittedly school was already set up in the converted land which was originally paddy field. When the land available with the school was insufficient for the purpose of the school, the school authorities requested the R.D.O. to permit filling of 37 cents of paddy field for the purpose of school. The R.D.O. on being satisfied about the additional requirement of land for the school, permitted the same, against which the W.P.(C) was filed. The appellant's case is that appellant being neighbouring paddy field owner is not able to cultivate paddy on account of filling neighbouring paddy land by the school authorities. If the paddy land of the appellant W.A. 1516/2008 2 has ceased to be unfit for paddy cultivation, we feel the only recourse open to the appellant is to ask for permission for conversion of his paddy land also for utilisation for other purposes. Since we find no merit in the Writ Appeal, we dismiss the same but with the above observation. P.R.RAMAN Acting Chief Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms