Athanikkal Muhammed vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1629 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

     FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.29067 OF 2020(G)


PETITIONER/S:

                ATHANIKKAL MUHAMMED,AGED 64 YEARS
                S/O.HASSAN HAJI, CHERUVAYOOR P.O.
                VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

                BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSION
                AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
                AGRICULTURE (NCA), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
                TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001.

      2         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
                COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.


OTHER PRESENT:

                GP:SRI.K.J.MANURAJ

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.29067 OF 2020(G)                2




                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction on the

part of the 1st respondent in considering and passing orders on Ext.P2 revision

petition that he had filed, challenging Ext.P1 order passed under Section 13 of the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The limited prayer of

the petitioner in this writ petition is for a direction to the 1 st respondent to

consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 revision petition expeditiously, after hearing

the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned

Government Pleader for the respondents.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the

submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the

1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 revision petition, after

hearing the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till such time as orders are passed by

the 1st respondent as directed and the order communicated to the petitioner,

coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P1 order shall not be taken by the respondents. It

is further made clear that the petitioner shall not alter the nature of the land in

question during the period when the stay granted by this Court is in operation.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

sd

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/11/2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS NO.DCMPM/8504/2019/B5.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION AND STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT DATED, 16/11/2020 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.