Kerala High Court
M.R. Pushparaja vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/2ND PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 26212 of 2015 (B)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
----------
M.R. PUSHPARAJA
S/O.RAGHAVAN M.A
MANGALA MUNDACKAL, EDATHALA P.O.,
ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENTS :
-----------
1. STATE OF KERALA
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM 682 001.
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
FORT KOCHI
4. TAHSILDAR, ALUVA 683 101
5. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
AGRICULTURE OFFICE, ALUVA 683 101
6. VILLAGE OFFICER
ALUVA EAST - 683 101.
7. SHERIFF, ETTUKKATTIL HOUSE,
EDATHALA P.O., S.O.S THEKKEKARA CROSS ROAD,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM 683 101
WP(C).No. 26212 of 2015 (B)
--------------------------
8. SIDDIQUE, ETTUKATTIL HOUSE,
EDATHALA P.O., S.O.S THEKKEKARA CROSS ROAD,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM 683 101
R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SAMJIRAM
R7 & R8 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH
BY ADV. SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 26212 of 2015 (B)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/11/2014
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE
PETITIONER ALONG WITH OTHERS RESIDENTS OF THE AREA
P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3/11/2014
P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 24/6/2014
P4: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 7/11/2014
P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/11/2014
P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADDITIONAL
TAHSILDAR, ALUVA
P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/11/2014
P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 6/5/2015
P9: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LAND
IDENTIFICATION DETAILS
P10: COPY OF THE REPORT DT 1/9/2015 OBTAINED UNDER THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
-----------------------
EXT.R7(A): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT UNDERTAKEN DT 23/2/2015
ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THIS RESPONDENT AND THE
COMPLAINANTS IN EXT P1 COMPLAINT.
EXT.R7(B): COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 21/3/2015 SUBMITTED BY
THE SAID SHAJI AA BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM.
EXT.R7(C): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 30/4/2015 GIVEN BY THE
TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA EAST.
EXT.R7(D): COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 25/6/2015 ISSUED TO THESE
RESPONDENTS AS WELL AST TO THE PETITIONER.
WP(C).No. 26212 of 2015 (B)
--------------------------
EXT.R7(E): COPY OF THE LETTER DT 2/7/2015 GIVEN BY THE
SECRETARY, MALAYILPALLY MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, ALUVA
RECORDING THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ISSUEDBETWEEN THIS
RESPONDENT AND SRI.A.A.SHAJI.
EXT.R7(F): COPY OF THE LETTER DT 19/7/2015 GIVEN BY
SRI. HARIDASAN NAIR (THE 3RD SIGNATORY IN EXT.P1)
BEFORE THE RDO (SUB COLLECTOR), FORT KOCHI.
EXT.R7(G): COPY OF THE LETTER DT 19/7/2015 GIVEN BY
SRI.NOORJAHAN (THE 4RH SIGNATORY IN EXT P1) BEFORE
THE RDO (SUB COLLECTOR), FORT KOCHI.
EXT.R7(H): COPY OF THE LETTER DT 19/7/2015 GIVEN BY SRI.SAGEER
M.M.(THE 5TH SIGNATORY IN EXT.P1) BEFORE THE RDO
(SUB COLLECTOR), FORT KOCHI.
EXT.R7(I): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 13/8/2015 SUBMITTED BY
SRI.A.A.SHAJI BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
ALONG WITH THE HEARING NOTICE.
EXT.R7(J): COPY OF THE REPLY DT 16/9/2015 ALONG WITH A COPY OF
THE BASIC TAX REGISTER GIVEN BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ALUVA EAST TO MY APPLICATION.
EXT.R7(K): COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 14/9/2015 SUBMITTED BY
THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXT.R7(L): COPY OF THE REPLY DT 17/9/2015 GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER AND SECRETARY OF EDATHALA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
=========================
W.P.(C) No.26212 of 2015
==========================
Dated this the 21st day of February, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court claiming that respondents 7 and 8 have illegally converted a paddy field in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, the 'Act').
2. It appears that the petitioner had moved an application before the District Collector under the provisions of the Act and specifically under Section 13 thereof, praying that the alleged illegal action of respondents 7 and 8 be interdicted and that the property that they have allegedly converted be restored as paddy field invoking powers under the Act. The petitioner says that even though several reports have been obtained by the District Collector from the competent Authorities under the Act, no final orders have been issued by him on Ext.P1. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition seeking directions to the respondents not to allow construction activities or conversion of the land in W.P.(C) No.26212 of 2015 2 violation of the Act.
3. I have heard Smt.Aruna.A., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Geethamani, the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6.
4. It may not be necessary for this Court to evaluate or consider the dialectical contentions of the parties since I think the stage has not come where the jurisdiction of this Court in such matters will have to be exercised, since Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner is still pending before the District Collector and since he appears to have obtained certain reports through the competent Tahsildar, Village Officer and the Sub Collector in order to ascertain the facts for the consideration of the issues in Ext.P1. The petitioner has produced such reports as Exts.P6, P8 and P10. The complaint of the petitioner appears to be that in spite of all these orders, which, according to him, establish the culpability of respondents 7 and 8, no final orders have been issued by the District Collector for reconversion of the property or against the respondents interdicting them from any further illegal action. The learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C) No.26212 of 2015 3 also says that in spite of interim orders of this Court to maintain status quo, respondents 7 and 8 continue their illegal activity and that, therefore, the petitioner has filed a contempt of court case, which is pending before this Court. She says that this attitude of respondents 7 and 8 shows that they are intransigent and expose their complete lack of respect for the Officials operating under the Act as well as for the authority of this Court.
5. I notice that the essential contention of respondents 7 and 8 as has been recorded by them in their counter affidavit filed in this case, which is that they have not conducted any illegal conversion activities over the properties and that the properties were converted as early as in 2004. They also say that the real issue between the parties is regarding the flooding of properties on account of development of their property and that they have, in the presence of the Tahsildar, entered into settlement with the other neighbours under which they have constructed canals for drainage of water and that none of them are now complaining or distressed by their actions.
6. According to the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8, the persons who have signed Ext.P1 complaint before the W.P.(C) No.26212 of 2015 4 District Collector has actually withdrawn from the complaint and therefore, they maintain that the District Collector cannot be now compelled to continue with or dispose of Ext.P1. Respondents 7 and 8 had produced Ext.R7(a) which appears to be a settlement that they have arrived at with their neighbours including some of the persons who have signed Ext.P1.
7. I have examined the pleadings on record and the materials available. I have also given a thought to the assertion that a settlement has been arrived at by respondents 7 and 8 with their neighbours as is evident from Ext.R7(a). However, Ext.R7(a) talks about a settlement with some of the persons in Ext.P1 but not with all, at least not with the petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner would always be entitled to pursue his complaint under Ext.P1 and Ext.R7(a) would not, therefore, inure to the District Collector to take the stand that he will not dispose of Ext.P1.
8. On the contrary, I am of the view that the District Collector, being an Authority under the provisions of the Act, is obligated by the terms of that Act to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 in terms of law. I think this is the fundamental obligation W.P.(C) No.26212 of 2015 5 of the District Collector and that such obligation cannot be diluted by even settlements between the parties, since illegal conversion of paddy field is not something which is merely in the domain of private interest but would spillover as conflict of interest in public domain. I, therefore, am firm that the District Collector should now take up Ext.P1 and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.
9. Since I do not deem it appropriate or necessary that this Court look into the issues raised here on its merits or to consider the controversy projected in view of the fact that the most competent Authority to exercise such powers would be the District Collector acting under the provisions of the Act, I deem it apposite that directions are issued to the District Collector to consider Ext.P1 in terms of the reports available before him or in terms of such material as may be placed before him by the Authorities or by the parties within a short spell of time.
10. In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition directing the second respondent - District Collector to take up Ext.P1 immediately and dispose it of in terms of law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to W.P.(C) No.26212 of 2015 6 respondents 7 and 8 and in terms of various reports produced in this writ petition, namely, Exts.P6, P8 and P10 and also by adverting to specific contentions in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 7 and 8.
11. Since I have already recorded that the action of the District Collector cannot be viewed to be merely in private interest but in the interest of the public at large, I deem it necessary that the District Collector take a decision at the earliest point of time. I think a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment would be sufficient for the District Collector to complete the afore-directed exercise.
12. I, therefore, direct the District Collector to dispose of the matter as indicated above within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I also direct him to treat these directions as being peremptory and not to seek any further time than what is granted herein, since I see that this issue has been pending for the last two or three years without proper resolution. Since I see that this Court had already granted an order of status quo on 03.09.2015, it is only apposite that the said order continue until such time as the District W.P.(C) No.26212 of 2015 7 Collector takes a decision as ordered herein.
The writ petition is ordered as above. In the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
stu JUDGE