Cyric and Sinoy Cyriac vs District Collector and Others

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioners are owners of paddy lands adjacent to certain properties purchased by respondents 5 to 7, which are also paddy lands. The petitioners have filed this writ petition complaining that respondents 5 to 7 are filling up the paddy lands to convert it into a construction site. According to them, the same is in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The petitioners point out that on the complaint filed by the petitioners , the Village Officer, Kidangoor has issued Ext. P2 stop memo directing respondents 5 to 7 not to fill up the paddy lands. Their grievance is that despite Ext. P2 stop memo, respondents 5 to 7 are continuing to fill up the land. They have also produced Ext. P7 series of photographs showing the nature of the land and the attempt to fill up the lands. They therefore seek the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to respondents 1 to 4 to implement Ext. P2 stop memo in letter and spirit considering Exts.P3 and P5 complaints preferred by the petitioners.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to respondents 1 to 4 to direct respondents 5 to 7 to remove the red earth and gravel dumped in their paddy field violating Ext. P2 stop memo.

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 5 to 7 denying the allegations. However, they have not denied Ext. P7 series photographs. A perusal of Ext. P7 photographs would show that the nature of the land is that of paddy field and there is attempt by somebody to fill up part of that land.

At the time of admission, an interim order was passed on 8-2- 2008 directing respondents 1 to 4 to see that respondents 5 to 7 strictly comply with Ext. P2 stop memo, if the same is still in force.

No counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 4. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that pursuant to the interim order, appropriate steps have been taken to see that respondents 5 to 7 do not continue filling up of the lands.

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

I am spared of considering the matter on merits since counsel for respondents 5 to 7 submits that no steps have been taken for filling up the land after passing of the interim order by this Court. He also submits that respondents 5 to 7 will not take any steps to fill up the land except after obtaining appropriate approval and permission as contemplated under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet land Act. This undertaking is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to see that respondents 5 to 7 do not do any conversion of the land in question except after obtaining appropriate approval and permissions under the abovesaid legislations or other legislations applicable.