K. Ramachandran Nair v. District Collector, Alappuzha District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannur; Village Officer, Cheppad; Cheppad Grama Panchayath; Harikumar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/7TH ASHADHA, 193** ## **WP(C).No. 12893 of 2013 (J)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **---------------------** **K. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, AGED 65, KOIPALLIL HOUSE CHEPPAD P.O., ALLEPPY DIST., PIN-690 507** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL** **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **----------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 507** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CHENGANNUR - 689 121** **3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHEPPAD VILLAGE OFFICE, CHEPPAD-690 507** **4. THE SECRETARY CHEPPAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHEPPAD-690 507** **5. HARIKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 45, KOCHUKADAIKKATTIL VEETIL, CHEPPAD, PIN-690 507** **R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (REVENUE) SRI. P.K. SOYUZ R4 BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR, SC R5 BY ADV. SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Mn** **...2/-** **WP(C).No. 12893 of 2013 (J) ---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :** ## **-------------------------------------** **EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4-10-2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT . EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1-10-2012. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT . EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17-10-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT . EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL ZONE DATED 21-12-2012. EXT.P6 Series PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAND IN AND AROUND THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY. EXT.P7 THE FIELD MAP PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEPPAD SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY, THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY AND THE OTHER ADJACENT OWNERS OF THE PADDY LAND. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE DATED 4.6.2013.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** - **--------------------------------------------** **EXT.R5(a) PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF MY PROPERTY. EXT.R5(b) COPY OF THE DATABANK NOTIFIED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEPPAD.** **EXT.R5(c) COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEPPAD UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.R5(d) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/4/2013 ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION IN APPEAL NO. 1068/2012. EXT.R5(e) COPY OF THE PASS BOOK IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN AVAILED BY ME FROM FEDERAL BANK LTD., MUTTOM BRANCH.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.12893 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28[th] day of June, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The case of the petitioner is that the property of the petitioner is an agricultural land and that, because of the filling up exercise that is being pursued by the fifth respondent in the nearby property, the agricultural operation in the property of the petitioner is quite adversely affected. Pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner, the matter was got enquired into and a 'stop memo' was issued by the Departmental Authorities. However, without any regard to the stop memo, the 5[th] respondent is proceeding with the filling up operations and hence the writ petition. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 31.05.2013 , the following interim order was passed : _“ Despite the completion of service of notice on admission to respondents 4 and 5 by Special Messenger, there is no representation on behalf of the 5[th] respondent. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned_ W.P.(C)No.12893/2013 2 _Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent Panchayath. The writ petition stands admitted._ _There will be an interim order to the effect that the respondents 1 to 3 shall ensure that no further filling up of land shall be caused to be effected by the 5[th] respondent or anybody under him till further orders are obtained.”_ 3. Subsequently, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed from the part of the fifth respondent, producing certain documents including a copy of the Data Bank Register as Ext.R5(b). It is the case of the fifth respondent that, the property at the time of purchase was lying as reclaimed land and that the fifth respondent has got all the requisite licences and permit to effect construction of building in the said property. However, on the basis of the complaint preferred by the petitioner, contrary to the actual facts and figures, the concerned respondent issued the stop memo. The fifth respondent tried to convince the concerned respondent as to the factual position. But since the fourth respondent Panchayath proceeded with steps for cancellation of the building permit and such other clearance given, the fifth W.P.(C)No.12893/2013 3 respondent was constrained to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, against the Panchayath. After considering the facts and figures, the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the impugned order passed by the Panchayaths as per Ext.R5(d) order dated 29.04.2013; however, making it clear that, if at all any violation is there, with regard to the construction, it could be proceeded against by the Panchayath, in accordance with the statutory provisions. The fifth respondent also contends that, in view of the said observation, the Panchayath has proceeded further and issued another stop memo, exactly in similar terms, which was intercepted by the Tribunal leading to Ext.R5(d). The steps being pursued by the petitioner are allegedly to harass the fifth respondent, who is a close relative of his. 4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit as well, producing copies of the photographs of the property, showing the lie and nature, as well as the topography of the land in question. Ext.P7 is the field map and Ext.P8 is a copy of the application filed before the Local Level Monitoring Committee for redressal of the grievance to the required extent. 4 W.P.(C)No.12893/2013 5. The third respondent has filed a statement referring to the sequence of events, including issuance of 'stop memo' and the report submitted by the Village Officer to the District Collector ( Ext.R3(b)). 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties concerned and also the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that this is a case which involves much disputed questions of facts, particularly, as to the exact nature of the property owned by the petitioner and the nearby property owned by the fifth respondent. It has to be ascertained, whether the property at the time of purchase in the year 2011 and further at the time of commencement of Act 28 of 2008, was lying as 'paddy land' or 'wet land'. This exercise has to be pursued by the first respondent after hearing both the sides and also after conducting an inspection of the site by an officer of higher level, with notice to the parties concerned. A finding has to be arrived at, in view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in **Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner** ( 2010 (2 ) KLT 617). In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider and finalise the matter 5 W.P.(C)No.12893/2013 forming the subject matter of File No.DCA/CA/1600/2012 dated 4.10.2012 referred to in Ext.R3(b) report submitted by the Village Officer. This shall be done after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the fourth respondent and also the fifth respondent. The proceedings as above shall be finalised at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Status quo shall be maintained till such time. Writ petition is disposed of. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.12893/2013 6