Disposed

Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2011WP(C)/7300/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought directions to prevent the seventh respondent from reclaiming paddy land in violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land. The court noted the petitioners' representation was ignored but found no necessity for specific directions based on the undertaking given by the seventh respondent.

What did the court decide?

No specific directions issued; liberty granted to petitioner to report future violations; petition disposed.

Abdul Rahiman Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 7300 of 2010(J)

¶6

------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED, VALAPPIL TACHAYIL HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., CHELAKULAM VIA., PERUMBAVOOR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR).

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

3. R.D.O.,MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

4. TAHSILDAR, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

5. VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTIMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶18

6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTIMATTOM.

¶19

7. ABOOBAKER, S/O.MOOSAN, POTHIYIL HOUSE, VILANGA P.O., CHELAKULAM, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶20

R1 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL, R7 BY ADVS. SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA, SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C).NO.7300/2010-J:

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT:-

¶25

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 02/02/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH NEARBY RESIDENTS TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

Prv.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

WP(C).NO. 7300 of 2010

¶32

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2011

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Petitioner is seeking direction to respondents 2 to 6 to take steps to restrain the 7^th respondent from filling up paddy land owned by him, in violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 . Petitioner inter alia seeks direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 representation. The allegation of the petitioner is that the 7^th respondent who had purchased about 1 Acre of property which is cultivated with paddy is making attempts to reclaim the land and to convert it in violation of the provisions of the above said Act. It is contended that the petitioner along with others submitted Ext.P1 representation in this regard before the 2^nd respondent. But inspite of receipt of such representation no action has been taken by respondents 2 to 6 to prevent such illegal activity of the 7^th respondent.

¶35

In the counter affidavit filed by the 7^th respondent, all the allegations are stoutly denied. On the other hand it is contended that the petitioner had filed this writ petition only with an intention to wreck personal vengeance against the 7^th respondent. It is contended that the signatories to Ext.P1 complaint are not persons residing anywhere

¶36

WPC.7300/2010

¶37

¶38

near to the land in question. However the 7^th respondent admitted that he had purchased 16.50 Ares of land and which is cultivated with paddy and other crops and even now the cultivation of paddy and other intermediary crops are going on. The allegation regarding reclamation is absolutely incorrect, is the contention.

¶39

In view of the rival contentions I do not find any circumstances to issue any specific direction to respondents 2 to 6. However, in view of the undertaking made by the 7^th respondent, it is made clear that if any instance of violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 is noticed the petitioner will be at liberty to point out such instance before the appropriate authority, and such authority shall take appropriate steps, if any such activity is done without obtaining permission as required under the relevant statute.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶41

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE

¶42

pmn/

¶43

WPC.7300/2010 3

¶44

WPC.7300/2010 4

Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saleem Ahmed Haji Ismail Vs State of Kerala and Others

Mercy Cherian Vs Keerampara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

M/S.Forest Industries(Travancore) Ltd., Vs the Commercial Tax Officer and Others

Salina Joseph Vs Rta, Kottayam

Aboobacker.P. Vs the District Collector and Others

Jini P.V Vs the Joint Registrar