Disposed

Anas .T v. District Collector

Kerala HC10 Jul 2023WP(C)/4915/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged delay in action on his complaint regarding illegal paddy land conversion by a highway contractor. Court ordered the District Collector to consider the representation, hear affected parties, and decide within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation, take appropriate decision after hearing affected parties within two months.

Anas .T Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4915 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANAS .T AGED 30 YEARS, S/O THAJUDHEEN, VAAZHAKUTTATHIL VEEDU, VAALATHUNKAL P.O, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 BY ADV JOMY K. JOSE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶10

COLLECTORATE KOLLAM, PIN - 691013

¶11

2 TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS KOLLAM) CIVIL STATION KOLLAM, PIN - 691013

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MANGADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691015

¶13

4 SHIVALAYA CONSTRUCTIONS 137, 2ND FLOOR, AVATHAR ENCLAVE, PASHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110063

¶14

5 NAUSHAD THOTTUMUGHAM, ARUNOOTIMANGALAM, MANGADU, KOLLAM, PIN - 691015

¶15

6 ANJU NATARAJAN CHANDRAVILASAM, KADAVOORCHERI, THRIKADAVOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691601

¶16

7 MUHAMMED HAJA PARAMBIL HOUSE, KAYYALAKKAL KOLLAM, PIN - 691020

¶17

8 HASEENA PARAMBIL HOUSE, KAYYALAKKAL KOLLAM, PIN - 691020

¶18

9 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ERAVIPURAM, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 BY ADV Jani A

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

ADV DEVISREE -GP

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P(C) No.4915 of 2023

¶23

..2..

¶24

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 10 th day of July, 2023

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

¶26

the alleged inordinate delay on the part of the 1 st respondent

¶27

- District Collector in considering the complaint preferred by the petitioner on 15.01.202 3, seeking action under Section 3 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008).

¶28

The 4^th respondent has been awarded the contract for development of NH 66 in Kollam district. The 4^th respondent established/installed huge machinery for construction in the paddy land under the custody of respondents 4 to 8, contends the petitioner. The 4^th respondent, under the guise of the National Highway development work, is now illegally converting large area of paddy land in Kollam District. Inspite of repeated stop memos from various Village Officers, the 4^th respondent is proceeding with the illegal conversion of the paddy land.

¶29

W.P(C) No.4915 of 2023

¶30

..3..

¶31

The petitioner approached the 1^st respondent – District Collector through a detailed complaint seeking intervention under Section 3 of the Act, 2008. The 1st respondent, on receipt of Ext.P4, ought to have taken necessary action under Section 3 of the Act, 2008.

¶32

This Court in Santhosh K.B v. District Collector, Thrissur [2016 KHC 736] has held that any activity undertaken by owner of a paddy land for any purpose other than paddy cultivation would amount to conversion of paddy land. Therefore, the inertness on the part of 1^st respondent in considering Ext. P4 is illegal and unjustifiable in the eye of law, contended the petitioner.

¶33

5 . I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶34

6 . The allegation of the petitioner is that under the guise of activities related to National Highway, the 4 th respondent is illegally converting paddy land indiscriminately,

¶35

W.P(C) No.4915 of 2023

¶36

..4..

¶37

in Kollam District. The petitioner has filed Ext.P4 complaint/representation in this behalf, to the District Collector.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law, after hearing the affected parties as is found necessary. The decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced anything on merit on the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶39

Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶40

¶41

W.P(C) No.4915 of 2023

¶42

..5..

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4915/2023

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ERAVIPURAM VIDE NUMBER 04/2022 DATED 08-12-2022 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER MANGADU VIDE NUMBER 27/2022 DATED 31-01-2022 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 0301-2023 VIDE NO D4.3079/2022 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT 15-01-2023 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ILLEGAL CONVERSION OF PADDY LAND

Anas .T v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anas .T v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajani K.C Vs the District Geologist

Shiju Kuriakose, Vs State of Kerala

Johnson Km S/O Varkey Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Jose T.J. Vs State of Kerala

Anirudhan, Vs the District Geologist

Abdul Majeed, Vs State of Kerala