Sunil Joseph, Aged 35 Years vs The District Collector on 9 October, 2099

Kerala High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 28345 of 2009(K)

1. SUNIL JOSEPH, AGED 35 YEARS,

... Petitioner

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

... Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR,

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ENATHU VILLAGE

5. THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.DIAS

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN Dated :09/10/2099

O R D E R

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28345 of 2009

------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT

Heard K.V.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Narayanan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of a parcel of land, 4.05 ares in extent, situated in Resurvey Nos.458/1-1-2, 458/1-1-1-1, 458/1-1-1 and 458/1-1-1-1-1, in block No.18 of Enathu Village, Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. He commenced the construction of a residential building therein. After the foundation was put up, he levelled the land by filling it up with sand. Thereupon, a complaint was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the petitioner has filled up paddy land. The Revenue Divisional Officer thereupon passed Ext.P3 prohibitory order staying further construction. The W.P.(C).No.28345 of 2009

petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P4 representation seeking cancellation of Ext.P3. This writ petition was thereupon filed challenging Ext.P3 and seeking direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P4 and pass orders thereon.

3. In my opinion, it is for the Revenue Divisional Officer to decide whether the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order or the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. A learned Single Judge of this Court has in Jayakrishnan Vs. District Collector, 2009 (1)KLT 123 held that the question whether a particular land is paddy land or wet land has to be decided after due enquiry and that the description of the land in the documents of title as wet land or paddy land is not conclusive. In my opinion, in the light of the decision of this Court in Jayakrishnan Vs. District Collector (supra) the Revenue Divisional Officer W.P.(C).No.28345 of 2009

will necessarily have to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext.P4 and take a decision thereon expeditiously.

In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to pass final orders on the complaint filed before him by the person named in Ext.P3 notice, after affording him and the petitioner, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This shall be done within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall have due regard to the directions issued by this Court in Jayakrishnan Vs. District Collector, while passing orders in the matter. The petitioner shall, in order to enable the Revenue Divisional Officer to act as directed above, produce before the Revenue Divisional Officer, a copy of the decision of this W.P.(C).No.28345 of 2009

Court in Jayakrishnan Vs. District Collector (supra) along with a certified copy of this judgment. It will be open to the petitioner to supplement Ext.P4 by filing a written representation.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

skj.