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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
