IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26314 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUNILKUMAR, S/O.KUMARIAMMA. P., PONNETHU HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ARATTUPUZHA DESOM, ARATTUPUZHA-680 562. BY ADVS. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT, SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR-680 001. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ARATTUPUZHA-680 562. 5. VALLACHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, VALLACHIRA-680 562. 6. SISTER ROSA, SANTHI BHAVAN, X/146, CHOORNIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 105. 7. ST.MARY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, REPRESENTED BY VICAR-FR.JOY KOOTHUR, ARATTUPUZHA, PALLISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 027. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASHREE, R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH, R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.26314/2011-L: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18-4-2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.KBV/32/10-11 DATED 28-12-2010 SUBMITTED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VALLACHIRA. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NO.B1 22469/10 DATED 13-12-2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 3-5-2011 IN WPC 12608/2011 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.B1 22469/10 DATED 23-5-2011 OF ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.B1 22469/10 DATED 30-5-2011 OF ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.B1 22469/10 DATED 15-7-2011 OF ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3 23560/10 DATED 14-6-2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22-8-2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 26314 of 2011 L ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ This writ petition arises from an earlier proceedings which was instituted by the 6th and 7th respondents before this Court, which culminated in Ext.P11 judgment. 2. According to the petitioner, on his complaint, proceedings were initiated by the second respondent under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008). It is stated that, on the directions of the second respondent, the third respondent submitted Ext.P3 report and that at that stage, the sixth respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12608/2011. In that writ petition, Ext.P4 interim order was passed by this Court directing that the first respondent shall consider the representation made by the sixth respondent objecting to Ext.P3 report. W.P.(C) No.26314/2011 : 2 : 3. It is stated that in compliance with the said order, Ext.P8 order was passed by the first respondent, without issuing notice or hearing the petitioner herein. Subsequently, the petitioner, who was originally not a party in the earlier writ petition, got himself impleaded in that writ petition and the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P8. It is accordingly, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The counsel for respondents 6 and 7 submits that Ext.P3 report was not on the complaint made by the petitioner herein. Still, a reading of the report itself will indicate that the petitioner was also making complaints against the illegal reclamation that was allegedly done by respondents 6 and 7. It is also a fact that Ext.P8, the order passed by the District Collector pursuant to Ext.P4 interim order, was rendered without issuing notice or hearing the petitioner. 5. When the petitioner was agitating the alleged illegal reclamation by respondents 6 and 7 and when the final W.P.(C) No.26314/2011 : 3 : proceedings were issued by the District collector, in my view, natural justice required that the petitioner also should have been heard by the District Collector. In that view of the matter, without expressing anything on the merits of the rival contentions made by both the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7, I set aside Ext.P8 order passed by the District Collector and direct that the matter be reconsidered by him, with notice to the parties, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/27/10 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge