IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 20541 OF 2022
PETITIONER
T.D. RAJU,
AGED 60 YEARS
s/O. DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT THARAYIL (THAMASA),
ARUNAPURAM, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
P.C.HARIDAS
P.S.GOVIND
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 686 001.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, PALA 686 575.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PULIYANNOOR , PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 573.
5 ARYA PRATHAP,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. PRATHAPACHANDRAN, PULIYANNOOR KARA,
PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 573.
SMT.SURYA BINOY (SR.GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.20541 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022 The petitioner is before this Court seeking to direct the 3 rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P2 complaint and take necessary action thereon within a time limit.
2. The petitioner states that the 5th respondent is the owner of 8 Cents of wetland near the property of the petitioner. The 5th respondent started reclamation of the wetland encroaching upon the PWD puramboke land. The 5 th respondent has also blocked a natural drainage in the area. The petitioner and other local residents filed Ext.P2 complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The complaint was submitted on 10.06.2022. Unless the 3rd respondent takes action on Ext.P2, the petitioner and other local residents will be put to untold hardship, contended the petitioner. WP(C) NO.20541 OF 2022 3
3. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. The Government Pleader submitted that according to the instructions received, Ext.P2 has not been received by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
4. The petitioner would point out that the petitioner has produced acknowledgment receipt from the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer evidencing submission of the complaint on 10.06.2022.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4. In view of the nature of releif being granted in this writ petition, notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with.
6. The contention of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent is making illegal reclamation of land and encroaching upon the PWD puramboke land also. The natural flow of drainage water is blocked by the 5 th respondent. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner along with others has WP(C) NO.20541 OF 2022 4 filed Ext.P2 complaint.
7. Since Ext.P2 complaint raises an issue of public nuisance, this Court is of the view that the 3 rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the same and take such steps as are warranted.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders as found necessary, on Ext.P2 complaint filed by the petitioner, with notice to the 5th respondent. The petitioner shall serve a copy of the writ petition along with the certified copy of this judgment on the 3 rd respondent. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced anything on merits, on the complaint of the petitioner.
sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.20541 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20541/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.05.2022 GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.