Fancy Construction Private Limited vs State of Kerala and Others

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—Both these writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner. In W.P. (C) No. 16387/2012, the petitioner is claiming ownership of property having an extent of 480 cents out of which the petitioner acquired the right and title of 386 cents by virtue of document No. 7591/2006 and acquired balance 94.490 cents as per document No. 7592/2006 of Paravur Sub Registry. It is averred in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that there is a pond in the said 94 cents of property of the petitioner whereas the remaining item is dry land with trees having age of more than 40 to 50 years. The prayer in the said writ petition is to direct the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 representation within a time frame. In Ext.P2, the petitioner has sought for change in the village records as Purayidom instead of Nilam in respect of certain items.

In W.P. (C) No. 20644/2012, the same petitioner challenges Ext.P6, a prohibitory order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 20.07.2012. Therein, by invoking the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008, the petitioner is directed to show cause in writing why action should not be initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1967 and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. A copy of the said order is furnished to various officers including Sub Registrar, Kottuvally who has been directed not to register the transfer of the above said land.

Mainly it is pointed out that there is no power for the Revenue Divisional Officer to direct a Sub Registrar not to register a document simply because proceedings are pending under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act.

A statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P. (C) No. 16387/2012. Various details with respect to the properties as well as the description in the Basic Tax Register have been given in paragraph 3 of the statement. According to the averments in the statement, approximately 30 cents of land was waterlogged and the applicant converted 7 cents of the above waterlogged property without prior sanction of the Revenue Authorities. Finally it is mentioned that as per Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the District Collector is the authority in the matter. It also shows that a report has been furnished by the Additional Tahsildar to the District Collector, Ernakulam for further action as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008.

Heard parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far no further action has been taken by the officers for hearing the petitioner in spite of a reply given as per Ext.P7 produced in W.P. (C) No. 20644/2012. Since proceedings have been initiated under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008, it is upto the District Collector to pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner.

In the light of the above, I am not going into the merits of the contentions of the parties. It is upto the District Collector to conduct due enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner who will be allowed sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in the matter. Appropriate orders will be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

These writ petitions are disposed of as above.