Kerala High Court
Varghese vs The District Collector on 24 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 22103 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
1 VARGHESE,
AGED 79 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VARGHESE, KALLINGAL HOUSE,
PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 THRESIAMMA,
AGED 71 YEARS,
W/O. LATE VARGHESE, KALLINGAL HOUSE,
PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI. P.JAYARAM
SHRI. GIGI PAPPACHAN
SHRI.AKHIL P
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.
2 THE SUB-COLLECTOR,
OTTAPALAM, PIN-679101.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ,
LAKKIDIPERUR VILLAGE-II, 6
P.O.LAKKIDI, PIN-679301.
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
LAKKIDI P.O., PIN-679301.
WP(C) No.22103/2020
:2 :
5 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
6 PARAMESWARAN,
S/O.LEKSHMANA IYER,
VALLEESA MADOM,
THEKKUMANGALAM, LAKKIDI P.O., PIN-679301.
BY ADV SRI.R.SREEHARI
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANU RAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.22103/2020
:3 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2021
The petitioners, who hold landed property in
Lakkidiperur-II Village in Ottapalam Taluk, seek to declare that
the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Act, 2008 do not apply to the petitioners' land. The
petitioners further seek to quash Ext.P1 order and Ext.P2 stop
memo.
2. The petitioners state that they are the absolute
owners in possession of land bearing Block No.88, Re-Survey
No.199/3, 199/6, 199/7, 199/8 and 199/9 situated in
Lakkidiperur-II Village, Ottapalam Taluk. The property is a
garden land, though it is described as 'Nilam' in Revenue
records. The petitioners would swear that the property was
not 'Nilam' as on the date of enforcement of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
However, some of the neighbours of the petitioners claimed
WP(C) No.22103/2020
right of way through the said property. The petitioners were
compelled to file a suit for injunction against the neighbouring
land owners before the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam.
3. The petitioners state that the politically powerful
neighbours influenced the Revenue officials. They contended
that the land would fall within the purview of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. On their
influence, the Sub Collector, Ottapalam passed Ext.P1 order
dated 12.10.2020 directing the petitioners to open a way
through the petitioners' property and restore the land to its
original position. Ext.P2 stop memo was issued by the Village
Officer restraining the petitioners from conversion of their land.
The petitioners submitted Ext.P3 objection to Ext.P2 stop
memo. The petitioners would submit that Exts.P1 and P2
were issued without any notice to the petitioners and without
hearing them.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1
to 5 and the learned counsel representing the 6 th respondent.
WP(C) No.22103/2020
5. A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that it has been
issued on the basis of the complaint filed by the 6 th
respondent. Ext.P1 does not advert Ext.P3 reply given by the
petitioners to the Village Officer. The counsel for the
petitioners and the counsel for the 6th respondent would
concede that there was no hearing of the matter preceding
Ext.P1 order. In the circumstances, Ext.P1 is liable to be set
aside and the 2nd respondent is compellable to extend an
opportunity of hearing to the parties to the dispute and issue a
fresh order.
Therefore, Ext.P1 is set aside. The 2 nd respondent
is directed to decide the issue afresh, after extending an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 6th
respondent. The interim order passed by this Court on
19.10.2020 will continue to enure to the benefit of the
petitioners till the 2nd respondent takes a decision afresh, in
accordance with law as directed above.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/25.06.2021
WP(C) No.22103/2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22103/2020
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.10.2020, FILE NO.RDOOTP/819/2020-G2
ISSUED BY SUB-COLLECTOR, OTTAPALAM
DIRECTING THE PETITIONERS TO OPEN A WAY
THROUGH PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND
RESTORE THE PETITIONER'S LAND TO ITS
ORIGINAL POSITION.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED
24.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, LAKKIDIPERUR- II VILLAGE
RESTRAINING THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM
CONVERSION OF HIS PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF
OBJECTIONS DATED 9.9.2020 AGAINST
EXHIBIT P2 STOP MEMO FILED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE AUTHORISED
OFFICER/VILLAGE OFFICER, LAKKIDIPERUR-
II VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT O.S.NO.211/2020
ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT,
OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT
FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1 & 2 IN
I.A.1306/2020 IN O.S.NO.211/2020 ON THE
FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH
ROUGH SKETCH DATED 26.8.2020 OF PLAINT
SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN O.S.NO.211/2020 ON
THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM
SUBMITTED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3846 OF
2010 S.R.O., OTTAPALAM, SHOWING
PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1157 OF
2018 S.R.O., OTTAPALAM SHOWING PURCHASE
OF PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
WP(C) No.22103/2020
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1255 OF
2018 OF S.R.O, OTTAPALAM SHOWING
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P10 PHOTO GRAPHS SHOWING THE TOPOGRAPHY OF
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
SR
