Disposed

Athikkal Mohammed Haji v. the District Collector

Kerala HC26 Mar 2024WP(C)/7153/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged the District Collector's order finding the petitioner's activities contrary to the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 on land recorded as 'sthira punja'. The court set aside Ext.P11, directed fresh consideration after hearing, and required status quo until new orders within four months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P11 set aside; District Collector to reconsider petitioner's case afresh after hearing, within four months; status quo maintained till then.

Athikkal Mohammed Haji Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7153 OF 2014

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 ATHIKKAL MOHAMMED HAJI

¶8

S/O.LATE ATHIKKAL AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI,
ATHIKKAL SAW MILL, V.K ROAD, KALLAI P.O,
 KOZHIKODE 673 003.

¶9

ADDL.P2 ATHIKKAL AYISHA,
AGED 62 YEARS, D/O. ATHIKKAL MOHAMMED HAJI, ABAYAM,
POOKKAYIL BAZAR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM - 676 101

¶10

ADDL.P3 AHAMMED MUNEER,

¶11

AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. ATHIKKAL MOHAMMED HAJI, MUNEER
MANZIL, EDAVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM - 676 541

¶12

[ADDL.P2 AND P3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
13.11.2023 IN I.A-1/2023 IN WP(C) 7153/2014]
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL
V.NAMITHA

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE 673 020.

¶15

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOZHIKODE 673 020.

¶16

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PANNIYANKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, PANNIYANKARA KALLAI P.O, 673 003. BY ADVS. SRI. VENUGOPAL V, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 7153 OF 2014 2

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by Ext.P10, which is the draft of the data bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2008 Act’) and also Ext.P11 proceedings of the District Collector, which finds certain activities carried out by the petitioner in an extent of 8 Ares out of 1.31 Acres of land belonging to the petitioner, is contrary to the provisions of the 2008 Act.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer in Exts.P3 and P6 would indicate that no part of the land belonging to the petitioner can be classified as wetland for the purposes of the 2008 Act. It is submitted that, overzealousness of the 3^rd respondent (village officer) is evident from the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent. It is submitted with reference to the judgment of this Court in Suraj V. State of Kerala [2018(1) KLT 1] that, the land which is not described in the revenue records as wetland or paddy land cannot be included as wetland or paddy land in the data bank prepared under the provisions of the 2008 Act. It is submitted that, a

¶22

WP(C) NO. 7153 OF 2014 3

¶23

reading of Ext.P11 and R1(a) report of the village officer produced along with the counter affidavit, indicate that the activities of the petitioner was objected to only on the ground that 8 Ares of land (out of the total extent of 1.31 Acres of land) belonging to the petitioner is wetland for the purposes of the 2008 Act. It is submitted that, in the revenue records pertaining to the property in question, the land is described as 'sthira punja'. It is submitted that, in Malabar area ‘sthira punja’ is a reference to ‘occupied dry land’ and therefore, there cannot be any action against the petitioner on the basis of the provisions contained in the 2008 Act, especially considering the law laid down by this Court in Suraj (Supra) . It is also pointed out that Ext.P8 purchase certificate also describes the land to be dry land.

¶24

Learned Government Pleader refers to the counter

¶25

affidavit filed in this case to contend that Ext.R1(a) report of the village officer indicates that the land of the petitioner abuts the Kallai river. It is submitted that, on the petitioner’s own showing, the extent of land, which the petitioner wanted to fill up using construction debris, is land which is inundated by the Kallai river during monsoon. It is submitted that, any permission to fill up the said land will cause serious

¶26

WP(C) NO. 7153 OF 2014 4

¶27

environmental problems, including flooding. It is submitted that the land which is inundated during monsoon, cannot be permitted to be converted as that will have serious consequences in so far as public interest is concerned. It is, however, admitted that the question has not been considered by the District Collector with reference to the contentions now taken before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the District Collector (the 1^st respondent), in accordance with the law and after having regard to the contentions taken by the petitioner before this Court that the land is described as ‘sthiram punja’ in the revenue records and cannot be described as wetland in the data bank prepared under the provisions of the 2008 Act. While considering the said question, it will be open to the 1^st respondent to consider as to whether any permission to convert the land will have any consequences, such as, flooding owing to the fact that, on the petitioner’s own showing, the land is flooding during heavy monsoon. In order

¶29

WP(C) NO. 7153 OF 2014 5

¶30

to enable the 1^st respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter, this writ petition will stand disposed of, by setting aside Ext.P11 and directing the 1^st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I make it clear that, I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and it will be open to the 1^st respondent to decide the matter, in accordance with the law. Status quo, as on today, shall be maintained till orders are passed by the 1^st respondent as directed above. The 1^st respondent shall endeavour to pass fresh orders in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

GOPINATH P.
JUDGE

¶33

ajt

¶34

WP(C) NO. 7153 OF 2014 6

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7153/2014

¶36

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT P1.`	`COPY OF THE ST` `THE 3RD RESPON`	`OP MEMO DATED 31.3.11 ISSUED BY` `DENT.`
`EXHIBIT P2.`	`COPY OF TH` `BEFORE THE 2ND`	`E APPEAL MEMORANDUM PREFERRED` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3.`	`COPY OF THE O` `2.1.12 PASSED`	`RDER NO.K.DIS 3874/2011/C DATED` `BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P4.`	`COPY OF NOT` `3RD RESPONDENT`	`ICE DATED 8.6.12 ISSUED BY THE` `.`
`EXHIBIT P5.`	`COPY OF TH` `BEFORE THE 2ND`	`E APPEAL MEMORANDUM PREFERRED` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P6.`	`COPY OF THE O` `PASSED BY THE`	`RDER NO.C.6878/12 DATED 31.7.12` `2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P7.`	`COPY OF THE` `BEFORE THE 1ST`	`PETITION DATED 1.12.12 FILED` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P8.`	`COPY OF THE P` `ISSUED BY THE`	`URCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.596/2005` `LAND TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.`
`EXHIBIT P9.`	`COPY OF TH`	`E INFORMATION NO.TP7/22182/11`
	`DATED 8.4.11` `KOZHIKODE.`	`ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF`
`EXHIBIT P10.`	`COPY OF THE` `15.5.13 OF THE`	`LETTER NO.V.O.NO.82/13 DATED` `3RD RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P11.`	`COPY OF THE` `8.7.13 OF THE`	`ORDER NO.L4-2012/66980/11 DATED` `IST RESPONDENT.`

Athikkal Mohammed Haji v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athikkal Mohammed Haji 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.Anand Vs State of Kerala

Shri. Mohammed Basheer Vs the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.)

Ravi Vs District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

K.Unnikrishnan Nair, Vs Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal

Joseph Jacob Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Said Muhammed Nizarudin, Vs Union of India