The Court dismissed a writ petition filed as a public interest litigation challenging the unauthorized conversion of paddy land. The Court held that the matter was a private dispute and the petitioner failed to demonstrate public interest or sufficient credentials for PIL status.
The writ petition and reliefs were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP(C).No.5733 OF 2021(S) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.5733 OF 2021(S)
PETITIONER/S:
SHIBULAL S.D. AGED 57 YEARS S/O. P.K.DAS, SREELAKSHMI, KARUVATTA NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 514.
BY ADVS. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SMT.MEENU THAMPI SHRI.AMAL STANLY SHRI.SHYAM KUMAR M.P SHRI.MOHAMED SHAREEF PARIYARATH SHRI.SIJIN K RAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
WP(C).No.5733 OF 2021(S) -2-
8 DEEPTHI NAIR W/O. MURALI, PUTHENKANDATHIL HOUSE, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 506.
9 SUNIL THOMAS S/O. THOMAS JOSEPH, VADAKKE ATTAM, KARUVATTA NORTH, THOTTAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 517.
10 BABU S/O. CHELLAPPAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KARUVATTA NORTH, THOTTAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 517.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE (SR.GP) FOR RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.5733 OF 2021(S) -3-
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2021
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
This is a Public Interest Litigation filed basically contending as
follows:-
Petitioner is a social worker engaged in agriculture. According
to the petitioner, he is very much concerned about the unauthorized and illegal conversion of paddy land / wetland into dry land, within the Karuvatta Grama Panchayat, on a large scale, causing natural calamities like flood etc. in the area.
Petitioner has submitted that the property extending 56.80 ares comprises re-survey no. 394/7 of Karuvatta Village was in the joint name of the 9th respondent and his wife. The said property is 'Nilam' as per the BTR and is included in the data bank. When the 9th respondent tried to convert the said property to dry land in violation of the provisions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, 1st respondent issued Ext. P4 and ordered him to retain the
WP(C).No.5733 OF 2021(S) -4-
said property as before, and in the event of non-compliance of the said order, revenue officials were directed that no dealings in respect of the said property shall be done . According to the petitioner due to the non-compliance of Ext. P4 order by the 9th respondent, the revenue authorities concerned, i.e. respondents 1 to 4, took a decision not to undertake any official exercise with regard to the said property.
Petitioner has further submitted that the 10th respondent purchased 5.07 ares of property out of 56.80 ares from the 9th respondent and his wife and thereafter, the 10th respondent committed forgery in the relevant records in order to effect mutation of his property by overriding the prohibitory orders issued by the 1st respondent, all in connivance with the officials concerned; that as per rules, permit can be given for constructing residence with an area of only 120 sq. meters, and that too in a property measuring 4.04 ares, which does not come within the data bank; and that Ext. P11 permit given by the 8th respondent in respect of 5.07 ares of property to construct 205.85 sq. meters of building, and that too in a property without proper records showing its non inclusion in the data bank, was clearly illegal.
WP(C).No.5733 OF 2021(S) -5-
Petitioner has also submitted that though he preferred Exts. P13 and P9 complaints before respondents 1 and 2 respectively requesting to cancel / revoke the mutation granted in respect of the property having an extent of 5.07 ares in re-survey no. 394/7-2 of Karuvatta Village, no effective steps have been taken by respondents 1 and 2 in the matter so far. Though the petitioner preferred Ext. P9 complaint before the 6th respondent requesting to cancel the building permit, the 6th respondent has not taken any positive steps towards such complaint till this date. The construction work in the property included in the data bank is still progressing. It is further contended that the actions / inactions on the part of respondents 1 to 8 are highly arbitrary, unjust and illegal. Being aggrieved, instant writ petition is filed.
he is engaged in agricultural activities and is a social worker much concerned about the unauthorized and illegal conversion of paddy land / wetland into dry land. According to the petitioner, the property extending 56.80 ares comprised in re-survey No. 394/7 of Karuvatta Village was in the joint name of the 9th respondent, namely one Sunil Thomas and his wife. The said property is recorded in the BTR as
WP(C).No.5733 OF 2021(S) -6-
paddy field and was included in the data bank. It is also pointed out that when the 9th respondent attempted to convert the said property to dry land in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, Ext. P4 order was issued by the District Collector, Alappuzha dated 17.09.2014 whereby the 9th respondent was directed to retain the said property as before since the property is included in the data bank as per the Act 2008.
WP(C).No.5733 OF 2021(S) -7-
205.68 sq.m., and seeks a writ of mandamus to cancel or revoke the mutation effected in respect of 5.07 ares of property situated in resurvey no. 394/7-2 of Karuvatta Village in favour of the 10th respondent, and further consequential reliefs are sought to stop the construction activities and take penal action against the 10th respondent.
petitioner and respondents 9 and 10 are seen to be converted as a public interest litigation. Petitioner has nowhere stated what is the public interest in the matter of conversion of a paddy field by the 9th and 10th respondents in violation of the provisions of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. It is also clear from the pleadings put forth by the petitioner and other documents produced that necessary orders were secured by the 10th respondent from the statutory authority under Act 2008 for utilization of the property for different purposes other than paddy cultivation. It is also quite clear that the building construction was put up after securing permits from
WP(C).No.5733 OF 2021(S) -8-
the Grama Panchayat.
a property cannot be converted as a public interest and seek relief by filing a public interest litigation. As we have pointed out above, the petitioner has failed to establish before this Court that consequent to conversion of a paddy field, the public at large is affected. Therefore the attempt made by the petitioner can only be viewed as a misuse of such a litigative process really intended to redress the grievances of a large group in any common incident by a class action. Normally costs should have been imposed, but bearing in mind the present situation of the pandemic Covid -19 we refrain from doing so.
WP(C).No.5733 OF 2021(S) -9-
Upshot of the discussion is that the writ petition fails,
accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
Eb
///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE
WP(C).No.5733 OF 2021(S) -10-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.15644/2020 DATED 17.8.2020. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BTR KEPT IN THE KARUVATTA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED NIL WITH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.4.2011 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 17.9.2014 WITH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER DATED NIL WITH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MUTATION REGISTER KEPT AT THE KARUVATTA VILLAGE DATED 22.11.2016 WITH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL WITH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.12.2020 WITH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.2020 WITH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.12.2020 WITH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P12 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 9.3.2018. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE |
WP(C).No.5733 OF 2021(S) -11-
7TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2020 WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 21.12.2020 WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.1.2021 WITH TRANSLATION.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a private dispute regarding property conversion can be maintained as a public interest litigation.
Whether the petitioner established that the public at large is affected by the conversion.
Whether the petitioner established standing to file a public interest litigation by describing credentials.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHIBULAL S.D.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS ALAPPUZHA
THE SECRETARY KARUVATTA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
DEEPTHI NAIR
BABU
S.MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
