Kerala High Court
Csi Madhya Kerala Diocese, Csi vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9850 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:
CSI MADHYA KERALA DIOCESE, CSI
DIOCESAN OFFICE, BISHOP GILL MEMORIAL BUILDING, CATHEDRAL
ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001, REPRESENTED BY
REV.DR.SABU K.CHERIAN.
BY ADV SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THIRUVALLA-689 101.
4 ANNAMMA ABRAHAM
W/O.JOSEPH ABRAHAM, ADHICHAN PARAMBIL GRACE VILLA,
PERINGARA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689108.
BY ADVS.
SRI. B.S. SYAMANTAK, GP
SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA - R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 9850 OF 2016
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.9850 of 2016
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order setting aside Ext. P3;
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order compelling the respondents not to permit the 4th respondent to convert her paddy field mentioned in Ext. P3 for any other purpose in violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act; and
iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
SIC WP(C) NO. 9850 OF 2016 3
2. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 order permitting the 4th respondent to convert her 25.45 Ares of paddy field into a fish farm. In Ext. P3, the 3 rd respondent admitted that the property in Sy. No. 270/2 of Peringara Village is a paddy land and the above property was included in the Data Bank, is the submission. In Ext. P3, the 3rd respondent further found that there is canal passing through the northern side of the property of the 4th respondent.
After all these findings, the 3rd respondent permitted the 4th respondent to convert her property affecting the strength of the petitioner - church, parsonage and day care in the petitioner's property, is the grievance. It is also submitted that the 4th respondent converts her WP(C) NO. 9850 OF 2016 4 property that will adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the adjoining properties. Hence, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 15.03.2016, this Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings consequent to Ext.P3 and the interim order was extended until further orders on 08.06.2016. The above order is in force even now. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 is an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner because the petitioner - church is an affected party. It is submitted that the 3 rd respondent WP(C) NO. 9850 OF 2016 5 passed Ext.P3 order permitting the 4th respondent to convert her paddy land into a fish cultivation centre by converting the nature of the property. It is submitted that, there are so many buildings in the property belongs to the petitioner including century old church.
It is further submitted that the 4th respondent digs the paddy field in her possession, it will affect the buildings in the possession of the church. It is further submitted that there is a day care in the property.
The digging of the pond affects the safety of the children is the further submission. It is also submitted that the property in possession of the 4 th respondent is included in the data bank and also there is a canal passing through the above property. Hence, WP(C) NO. 9850 OF 2016 6 Ext.P3 order is unsustainable is the submission.
5. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that the matter is to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent with notice to the petitioner and 4th respondent. A perusal of Ext.P3 would not show that the 3rd respondent has considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merit, Ext.P3 can be set aside. There can be a direction to the 3 rd respondent to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 4 th respondent.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
WP(C) NO. 9850 OF 2016 7
(i) Ext.P3 order is set aside.
(ii) The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN nvj JUDGE WP(C) NO. 9850 OF 2016 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9850/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.02.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20.02.2016 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2016 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE