IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8699 of 2008(S) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- PADMANABHAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AGED 71 YEARS, PLANTHARA EDATHAKUTTU HOUSE, KUNDANNUR KARA, PALACHUVADU, KAKKANADU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE OFFICE. 3. K.M. LATHEEF, S/O.K.B.MUHAMMED, KAVANATTU HOUSE, H.NO.33/1563, HARITHA ROAD, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI-682028. 4. P.H.AMINA, W/O. K.M.LATHEEF, KAVANATTU HOUSE, H.NO.33/1563, HARITHA ROAD, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI-682028. 5. ASMA SALIM, W/O. K.M. SALIM, KAVANATTU HOUSE, L.F.C.ROAD, KALOOR P.O., KALOOR. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 8699 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, After going through the pleadings, to our mind, it occurs that the writ petition that is filed is in the nature of “paise interest litigation” rather than a public interest litigation. We say so for the reason, that, the contesting respondent herein had purchased four acres of paddy land in Vazhakkala Village. He had converted those lands into dry land. Petitioner who is a resident of the same village did not object or protest against such conversion by approaching the competent authorities. 2. It is thereafter the respondent has purchased an extent of 1 acre 16 cents of land in the same village sometime in the year 2008. It is the allegation of the petitioner before us that the contesting respondent is trying to fill up the rest of the paddy lands and intends to convert it into dry land. The petitioner, having approached the District Collector by making a representation dated 22.2.2008, has approached this court for the following reliefs. They are as under: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to ensure that no paddy fields in Vazhakkala village are to be converted into dry land without obtaining prior permission from the 1st respondent under Order 6 of the Land Utilization Order. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to pay compensation for the deprivation of livelihood and consequent life of the petitioner as well as similarly situated others.” 3. We have heard Sri.A.X.Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner. WPC. 8699/2008. 2 4. In our view, by no stretch of imagination we can call the petitioner a public spirited citizen. It was he who was in the forefront to receive money from the contesting respondent to distribute the same to the agriculturists when he converted four acres of paddy fields into dry lands. At that time he did not have any objection whatsoever. . It is only thereafter when the contesting respondent has commenced to convert 1 acre 16 cents of paddy land into dry land, the petitioner has rushed to this court. May be, this time, the contesting respondent might not have paid anything to the petitioner. We say so for the reason that if the petitioner would be really interested in preserving the paddy fields, he would have approached this court when the contesting respondent had converted four acres of paddy field into dry land. For all these reasons, in our opinion, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by us. Accordingly, we reject the writ petition without even reference to the respondents. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb/DK.