Disposed

Mohanan v. the District Collector

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/21258/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition seeking to stop the reclamation of paddy land by two respondents adjacent to the petitioner's property. The Court held that since the matter regarding reclamation was pending consideration by the District Collector, no immediate interference was warranted. Instead, the Court directed the Collector to consider the representation filed by the petiti

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st Respondent (District Collector) to consider and pass orders on the representation filed by the Petitioner after hearing the Petitioner and Respondents 5 & 6 within two months.

Mohanan Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 21258 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MOHANAN AGED 59 YEARS S/O. KESAVAN NAIR (LATE), RESIDING PALAKKAD AT KORETH HOUSE, MEZHATHUR, TRITHALA (POST), DISTRICT, PIN- 679 534.

¶7

BY ADVS. M.DEVESH ASHWIN SATHYANATH THAREEQ ANVER K.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN 678 001. 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM, PIN - 679 101. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TRITHALA VILLAGE, (POST) TRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 534. 4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, (POST) TRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 679 534. 5 SHAJITHA, W/O BASHEER, PULAMANTHOL VALAPPIL HOUSE, (POST) THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 679 534. 6 BASHEER, PULAMANTHOL VALAPPIL HOUSE, (POST) THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 634 BY ADVS. R.SREEHARI HAMZA A.V.

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P.(C) No.21258 of 2022

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the steps taken by respondents 5 and 6 to convert the property purchased by them adjacent to the petitioner's property as a garden land. The petitioner states that, due to the reclamation of paddy land by respondents 5 and 6, the petitioner is not in a position to cultivate paddy in his land. It is also stated that free flow of water for irrigation purpose is obstructed due to the filling up of the paddy land by respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner has filed Ext.P3 representation before the 1^st respondent against the reclamation of paddy land by respondents 5 and 6.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶16

W.P.(C) No.21258 of 2022

¶17

¶18

the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6, and the learned Government Pleader.

¶19

Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel for

¶20

respondents 5 and 6 relies on Ext.P2 document to contend that the District Collector has already considered the issue relating to reclamation of paddy land of the respondents 5 and 6 and the matter cannot be reagitated in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P2 is with regard to earlier reclamation of paddy

¶21

land in another property and the present reclamation is with regard to the land the respondents 5 and 6 purchased in 2019.

¶22

Since the issue regarding the alleged reclamation of paddy land by respondents 5 and 6 is pending consideration before the District Collector

¶23

¶24

W.P.(C) No.21258 of 2022

¶25

in Ext.P3, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 after hearing the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. The parties are free to produce all relevant materials before the 1^st respondent at the time of hearing.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C) No.21258 of 2022

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21258/2022

¶32

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶33

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 673/1989 OF S.R.O. THRITHALA.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2014 PASSED IN LRG-1-2012/88474/9.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.10.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 05.10.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT OF SERVING EXT.P3 REPRESENTATION
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.10.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 05.10.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT OF SERVING EXT. P5 REPRESENTATION
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.10.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 05.10.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT OF SERVING EXT.P7 REPRESENTATION
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.10.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH

¶34

W.P.(C) No.21258 of 2022

¶35

¶36

RESPONDENT. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 05.10.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07.03.2022 RECEIVED FROM THE TALUK OFFICE, PATTAMBI. Exhibit P12 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NEWLY RECLAIMED PADDY LAND OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/02/2022 ALLEGED TO HAVE SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO TAHSILDAR, PATTAMBI.

Mohanan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

A.Nazarudheen Vs Satheesh

P.K.Baby, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Murali T.G Vs Vettom Grama Panchayath

Saju George, Vs the Additional District Magistrate

Rabiya Kattayath Thazhath Vs the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions