Allowed

Abdul Salam. K.A v. the District Collector Thrissur

Kerala HC2 Aug 2022WP(C)/7688/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged illegal conversion of paddy land into a pond and obstruction of water flow. The High Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioners' complaint and take appropriate action within ten weeks after affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st respondent to consider the complaint filed by the petitioners and take appropriate action within ten weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 8th respo

Abdul Salam. K.A Vs the District Collector Thrissur — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7688 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

1ABDUL SALAM. K.A
AGED 59 YEARS
KADAMBOTT HOUSE, ERIYAD POST, ERIYAD VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680666
2MUHAMMED RASHEED
AGED 54 YEARS
PALLIPPURATH HOUSE, ERIYAD POST, ERIYAD VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- .680 666,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NASAR P.A,
AGED 46 YEARS, BUSINESS, S/O ABDULLAKUTTY,
PALLIPURATH HOUSE, ERIYAD VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN 680 666,
BY ADVS.
K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR)
MUHAMMED ASHIQUE
P.K.MINIMOLE
JAYARAJ REJI
G.MOTILAL

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

¶10

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA, KERALA, PIN - 680125

¶11

3 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN.680684.,

¶12

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE ERIYAD, ERIYAD VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN.680666

¶13

5 THE SECRETARY ERIYAD GRAMAPANCHAYATH, ERIYAD POST, ERIYAD VILLAGE, ERIYAD VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

WP(C) NO.7688 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

PIN. 680666,
6LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REP. BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, ERIYAD P.O., KODUNGALLUR.
PIN-680666.,

¶17

7 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION, P.O. KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680664.

¶18

8 FATHIMA AGED 65 YEARS ERIYAD POST, ERIYAD VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 666, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KODUNGALLUR POST, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK,, PIN – 680664

¶19

SRI. SYAMANTHAK B.S - GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO.7688 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2022

¶25

The petitioners, who are residing in their residential building in the properties mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2, have

¶26

filed this writ petition seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to take measures for restoring the original condition of the paddy land extending 1 Acre and 45 Cents belonging to the 8^th respondent. The petitioners also seek to direct respondents 1 and 2 to take measures for restoration of the thodu on the property of the 8^th respondent and to remove obstruction on the culvert so as to facilitate free flow of water from the residential properties of the petitioners.

¶27

The petitioners state that the 8^th respondent, violating the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2008), reclaimed paddy land and converted it as thodu and chira. Ext.P4 report of the Local Level Monitoring

¶28

WP(C) NO.7688 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

Committee would show that the 8^th respondent has violated the provisions of the Act, 2008 and has illegally converted paddy land. Such illegal conversion is creating severe water logging problems in the petitioners’ property. The entire area is submerged in water. In the circumstances, the petitioners filed Ext.P10 complaint before the 1^st respondent and others. Ext.P10 was filed in the month of January, 2022. No action has been taken on Ext.P10.

¶31

The petitioners would submit that the respondents are aware of the issue and the Village Officer concerned had issued Ext.P7 Stop Memo prohibiting the 8^th respondent from making any conversion activities. According to the petitioners, Ext.P7 Stop Memo was issued after a site inspection by the District Collector. The facts being so, unless the filled up paddy land is restored, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and injury.

¶32

Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader

¶33

WP(C) NO.7688 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is submitted that if Ext.P10 is received, supported by all requisite documents, the District Collector can consider the matter in accordance with law. The contesting 8^th respondent will have to be issued notice and a hearing will have to be provided, contended the Government Pleader.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. In view of the nature of reliefs being granted in the writ petition, notice to the 8^th respondent is dispensed with.

¶37

The grievance of the petitioners is that the 8^th respondent has illegally converted paddy land without obtaining any permission from authorities under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The illegal conversion has caused waterlogging problems. The petitioners have filed Ext.P10 complaint to the 1^st respondent.

¶38

WP(C) NO.7688 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P10 complaint filed by the petitioners and take appropriate action thereon, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 8^th respondent. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of ten weeks.

¶41

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

¶42

hmh

¶43

WP(C) NO.7688 OF 2022

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7688/2022

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

`Exhibit P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.143/1995` `OF SRO, KODUNGALLUR`
`Exhibit P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1548/2002` `OF SRO, KODUNGALLUR.`
`Exhibit P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 7-` `11-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS` `BEFORE LLMC, ERIYAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH`
`Exhibit P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 28-2-` `2020 OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,` `KRISHI BHAVAN, ERIYAD WITH TYPED COPY`
`Exhibit P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED` `11-10-2019 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICER,` `ERIYAD.`
`Exhibit P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED` `30-11-2019 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICER,` `ERIYAD.`
`Exbhit P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED` `BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERIYAD DATED` `28-12-2019`
`Exhibit P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION DATED 23-` `12-2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P9`	`THE REQUISITION DATED 3-1-2020 ISSUED` `BY RESPONDENT 5 TO RESPONDENT 8.`
`Exhibit P10`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10-` `1-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO` `RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2`

Abdul Salam. K.A v. the District Collector Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salam. K.A v. the District Collector Thrissur

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

Joseph, Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Jacob Vs Kottayam Municipality

Sivarama Pillai Vs Kuttoor Grama Panchayat

Ojasvi'S Construction Solutions, Vs Anand Singh, I.A.S.

Anilkumar @ Anil a Vs Chirayinkeezhu Grama Panchayat

Chinnamma George Vs Narasimhugari Tej Lohit Reddy