Quashed

Mathai & Another v. the District Collector & Others

Kerala HC14 Nov 2016WP(C)/5971/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside orders directing petitioners to restore a paddy field without prior notice or opportunity of hearing, emphasizing that the interim order preventing conversion did not authorize immediate restoration directions.

What did the court decide?

Orders directing restoration of paddy land set aside; District Collector directed to consider representations and pass orders after hearing parties.

Mathai & Another Vs the District Collector & Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5971 of 2010 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. MATHAI, S/O.ABRAHAM, KOCHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KADAMATTOM P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶8

2. ISSAC, S/O.IYPE, CHOLLAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KARUKAPPILLY P.O, (VIA) KOLENCHERRY, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶13

3. JAMES P.VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, PADINJASSERIL HOUSE, KARUKAPPILLY P.O, KUNNATHUNADU.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2016, ALONG WITH WPC. 33657/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 5971 of 2010 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY.

¶21

EXHIBIT P1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN WPC.33657/2009.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.3.2.2010, ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.3.2.2010, ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.5971 of 201 0 & WP(C) No.33657 of 2009

¶33

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioners in WP(C) No.5971/2010 challenges Exts.P3 and P4 orders, by which the District Collector directed them to restore the paddy field in its original position within two weeks, failing which it was informed that proceedings under section 13 of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, would be initiated. Both these orders are stated to be passed on the basis of the oder dated 24.11.2009 passed by this court in WP(C) No.33657/2009 filed by Sri.James P.Varghese who is the 3^rd respondent in WP(C) No.5971/2010 and the petitioner in WP(C) No.33657/2009.

¶36

Sri. James P.Varghese filed WP(C) No.33657/2009 praying for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 -District Collector, Ernakulam and Tahsildar, Kunnathunad to prevent respondents 3 and 4 (petitioners in WP(C) No.5971/2010) from converting the paddy field and for a direction to confiscate the vehicles used for conversion of paddy lands and to initiate proceedings for prosecution against respondents 3 and 4. An interim order was passed in WP(C) No.33657/2009 on 24.11.2009 directing respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that respondents 3 and 4 (petitioners in WP(C) No.5971/2010) do not convert paddy

¶37

W.P.(C) No.5971 of 2010 and c/c.

¶38

:2:

¶39

lands in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Lands and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is seen from Exts.P3 and P4 orders that immediately on receipt of the interim order the 1^st respondent District Collector passed orders directing them to restore the paddy land. The orders Exts.P3 and P4, do not reveal the issuance of any notice to the petitioners in WP(C) No.5971/2010 before the orders were issued.

¶40

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases, it is seen that under the guise of the interim order passed by this court, the 1^st respondent issued a direction to the party respondents to restore the paddy land without issuing a notice. This court while directing to ensure that the paddy fields are not converted in violation of the Rules did not direct the 1^st respondent, to pass any order without issuing notice or affording opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.

¶41

Under the above circumstances, without going to the merits of the rival contentions, orders Exts.P3 and P4 in WP(C) No.5971/2010 are set aside. The District Collector shall consider the representation submitted by Sri.James P.Varghese (Ext.P3 in WP(C) No.33657/2009) and any other supplemental representations which the petitioners are free to submit along with a copy of the judgment, and pass

¶42

W.P.(C) No.5971 of 2010 and c/c.

¶43

:3:

¶44

orders, after hearing the petitioner in WP(C) No.33657/2009 and the petitioners in WP(C) No 5971/2010, within a period of two months

¶45

from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶46

The writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶49

rkc

Mathai & Another v. the District Collector & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathai & Another v. the District Collector & Others

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

Soumini P. Vs State of Kerala

Apple a Day Properties Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Koya Vs the South Indian Bank Ltd.

N.Venkateswara Pai Vs Union of India & Another

K.Muralieedharan Nair Vs Aneesh Kumar

Isha Shahul Hameed Vs the Director Ihrd