High CourtsDivision Bench

M.M.Joseph vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 May 2022 · Citation: (2022) 05 KL CK 0045

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anu Sivaraman, J · P.G. Ajithkumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 — Section 13
CASE NUMBER
Writ Pettion (C) No. 16025 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 370 words

Anu Sivaraman, J

1.

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents 2 to 4 to take immediate steps to stop the 5th and 6th respondents from carrying out any activities in the illegally converted paddy land and encroached public property and also from carrying our further conversion of paddy lands;

ii) direct the 2nd respondent to take appropriate steps to restore the illegally converted paddy land by 5th and 6th respondents in its original position as provided under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act;

iii) issue  a  writ  of  mandamus  or  any  other appropriate writ, order or direction to 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 as expeditiously as possible;

iv) pass   an   order   of   injunction   restraining respondents 5th and 6th respondents from carrying out any construction activities in the subject land, i.e subject matter of Ext.P1 to P4;

v) to issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the General Secretary of a registered organisation which is formed inter alia to protect the exploitation of natural resources and to protect the interest of poor people. It is submitted that the 5th and 6th respondents have encroached upon puramboke land and illegally converted about 10 cents of paddy land without any permissions from the appropriate authorities. Complaining of these facts, petitioner has preferred Exts.P1 and P4 representations before the Tahsildar and the Village Officer respectively and seeks directions for consideration of the same.

3.

Having heard the Government Pleader and without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to take up Ext.P1 representation submitted by the petitioner to consider and pass appropriate orders on the same with notice to respondents 5 and 6 and any other affected parties.

Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.