Kerala High Court
Lalithamma Sukumaran vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 21 May, 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
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17063 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
LALITHAMMA SUKUMARAN
KARIPPAKUZHY HOUSE, THIRUMOOLAPURAM PO, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.P.MOHANDAS ERNAKULAM
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 101.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KAVUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA 689 102.
3 PERINGARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINGARA, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA 689 108.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.17063/2017
..2..
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
=========================
W.P(C) No.17063 of 2017
==========================
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following
prayers:
"i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.
P6 order No. C2-518/17/K Dis. dated 2-3-2017
issued by the first respondent as it is arbitrary
and illegal;
ii) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.
P7 order No. C2-1138/17 dated 21-04-2017 issued
by the first respondent as it violates all principles
of natural justice;
iii)to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or
direction to the first respondent to allow the
petitioner to raise the level of her property to that
of M.C. road by using rock powder or other
materials;
iv) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or
direction to the first respondent not to disturb the
repairs made in the latrine by filling seven loads
of rock power;
v) to issue such other appropriate Writ, Order or
direction as is deemed just and necessary in the
circumstances of the case."(sic)
2. The petitioner is the owner of 51.15 Ares of
landed property in resurvey no.215/1 in block no.7 of
..3..
Kovumbhagom Village in Thiruvalla Taluk in
Pathanamthitta district. It is submitted that there are
three residential houses in the property and all the
houses are occupied by different families. It is submitted
that the petitioner has been remitting the tax for this
building for years together. While so, the MC Road facing
the petitioner's property, at the time of renovation, raised
to a height of 10 ft. from the ground level is the
submission. As a natural consequence, the waste water
started flowing from the road to downwards and getting
collected in the petitioner's property, including the
houses, is the grievance of the petitioner. Thereupon the
petitioner made a request to the 1 st respondent to allow
him to raise the property by filling rock powder to that
level of the MC Road. The said request is rejected,
stating untenable reasons is the submission.
3. Now due to the collection of water, the latrine
of one of the buildings is damaged developing large holes
making the latrine unusable. It is also submitted that, the
..4..
petitioner repaired the latrine by putting rock powder to
fill the holes. 1st respondent subsequently passed an
order directing the petitioner to remove the rock powder.
Ext.P6 is an order rejecting the application of the
petitioner to fill the land. Ext.P7 is an order passed by
the authority concerned to remove the filled portion
within five days. Aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7, this
petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, the Revenue Divisional Officer has no
authority to pass Exts.P6 and P7 order. The learned
counsel submitted that, admittedly, it is a 'Purayidam'.
Ext.P1 is the Possession Certificate, in which it is stated
that it is a 'Purayidam'. Moreover, even in Exts.P6 and
P7, it is clearly stated that the property is a 'Purayidam'.
Hence, it is submitted that Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, is not applicable.
..5..
6. I find some force in the above argument of the
learned counsel. If there is any unauthorised filling, the
competent statutory authorities can proceed, but it
cannot be under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Therefore, Exts.P6
and P7 can be quashed, but I make it clear that the
competent authority is free to proceed in accordance with
law if there is any violation of any statutory provisions.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
i. Exts.P6 and P7 are set aside.
ii. I make it clear that, the statutory
authorities are free to proceed in accordance to
law with notice to the petitioner, if there is any
violation of any statutory provisions.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
ACR
..6..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17063/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
29.5.2007
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAST TAX RECEIPT DATED
4.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE EXISTENCE OF
THE BUILDING
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 IN
RESPECT OF BUILDING NO. 6/419, 6/421 AND
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 IN
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C2-518/17/K DIS
DATED 2.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C2-1138/17
DATED 21.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
