Kerala High Court
Abdul Gafoor vs Govindan Ezhuthachan on 17 March, 2025
2025:KER:22876
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
RP NO. 252 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.24032 OF 2022 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.7:
ABDUL GAFOOR
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. HAMZA MUSALIYAR, KANNAMANNIL HOUSE, ANAMANGAD,
THOOTHA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679357
BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 GOVINDAN EZHUTHACHAN
S/O. NARAYANAN EZHUTHACHAN, EDATHARAKUDIYIL HOUSE,
THOOTHA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679357
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM P.O, PIN - 676505
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PERINTHALMANNA, RDO OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
4 TAHSILDAR
PERINTHALMANNA, CIVIL STATION, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ANAMANGAD VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679357
6 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, ALIPARAMBU, THOOTHA P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679357
RP No. 252 of 2025 -2-
2025:KER:22876
7 DISTRICT SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER
DISTRICT SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, MANJERI, MANJERI
P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121
BY GP- RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP No. 252 of 2025 -3-
2025:KER:22876
ORDER
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2025
Above review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment in
WP(C) No.24032 of 2022 dated 16.12.2024.
2. WP(C) No.24032 of 2022 was filed seeking a direction to
respondents 1, 2 and 4 to take immediate action to implement
Ext.P1 order. By Ext.P1 order the 7th respondent was directed to
remove the ridge constructed with stones obstructing the free flow
of water from the petitioner's property. This Court disposed of the
writ petition ordering that if the direction in Ext.P1 has not been
complied with by the 7th respondent, respondents 1 to 3 shall take
necessary action to see that the direction in Ext.P1 is enforced in
accordance with law and appropriate action in this regard shall be
taken within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of
a copy of that judgment with notice to the petitioner and the 7 th
respondent. It is the said judgment that is now sought to be
reviewed by the 7th respondent in the review petition.
3. In the above review petition the petitioner would contend
that an earth mover was used only to remove the roots of a 35 year
old arecanut tree and for cleaning and reinstating the pond, and the
petitioner has no intention to change the nature of the land by
depositing soil. The 1st respondent who is the writ petitioner has
2025:KER:22876
been filing frivolous complaints against the review petitioner before
various authorities. Annexure 6 order (Ext.P1 order) in WP(C) was
served on the petitioner and the said order was issued without
giving an opportunity of hearing or filing a counter by the review
petitioner.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioner
would further submit that when the writ petition was pending before
this Court Annexure 7 report was filed by the Village Officer before
the Sub-Collector, in which it is clearly mentioned that boundary
ridges are constructed to prevent soil erosion and land slides and
that the review petitioner has provided sufficient arrangement for
water passage too. The review petitioner would further submit that
strengthening of outer bund for protecting the cultivation will not
attract the prohibition under Section 3 of the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. It is in the said circumstances
that the review petitioner sought for review of the judgment.
The only direction issued by this Court in the judgment dated
16.12.2024 is that, if the direction in Ext.P1 has not been complied
with by the 7th respondent, respondents 1 to 3 shall take necessary
steps to see that the directions are complied with. The petitioner has
not challenged Ext.P1 order in any of the proceedings. The
contentions of the petitioner is that going by Annexure 7 order the
2025:KER:22876
complaint against the petitioner as found in Annexure A6 is not
available any more. If the petitioner is in any way aggrieved by
Ext.P1 order it is for the petitioner to challenge the same in
appropriate proceedings. When further proceedings are initiated
based on the direction in the judgment in WP(C) No.240302 of 2022
which was directed to be initiated with notice to the review
petitioner, who is the 7 th respondent in the writ petition it is for the
review petitioner to appraise the said authority about Annexure 7
order or that the petitioner has duly complied with the directions in
Ext.P1 order. Leaving open such liberty to the petitioner, the review
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sbk/-
2025:KER:22876
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE
GOVERNMENT PLEADER DATED 23.08.2024 IN
Annexure 2 . TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED
NO.2862/2010 OF S.R.O. WANDOOR
Annexure 3 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE RIDGES
Annexure 4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 08.03.2019
SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY, GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, ALIPPARAMBU BEFORE THE LEGAL
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2021
ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21.06.2024
SUBMITTED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE THIRD RESPONDENT
