P MOHANAN Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to extend the time for reclamation of land by a period of 3 months." 2. Petitioner presses prayer No.1 before us. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. Petitioner purchased an extent of 5 cents of land as per Ext.P1 document. Mutation was effected. Ext.P2 is the receipt for payment of land tax. Ext.P3 is the copy of possession certificate. The land was lying as barren land. He wants to construct a building therein. He applied for reclaiming the land as per the provisions of the Land Utilisation Order, 1967. That is granted by Ext.P4 dated 18.6.2007 with four conditions. Petitioner submitted application for building permit before the panchayat. Ext.P5 is the building permit. Due to the delay in getting Ext.P5, there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in reclaiming the land. Petitioner filed application before the 4th respondent to extend the time vide Ext.P6. In the meantime, the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 came into force. The said Act received the assent of the Governor on 11.8.2008. The panchayat informed the petitioner vide Ext.P7 that since the permission issued by the RDO has not been extended, it is cancelling the building permit. Petitioner filed a writ petition culminating to Ext.P8 judgment wherein the RDO was directed to consider Ext.P3 petition therein. Petitioner filed reminder. He was informed by Ext.P11 that the application has been rejected. Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.9087/2010. By Ext.P12 judgment the Court allowed the writ petition holding that there is nothing in law which prohibits the RDO to pass orders granting extension. On receipt of Ext.P12, petitioner attempted to start the reclamation work. However, the 3rd respondent is threatening the petitioner that it will not allow petitioner to reclaim the land as the policy of the government is to discourage the reclamation of lands. While passing Ext.P12 order only one month's time is granted. Petitioner has been granted extension by a month vide Ext.P14. Ext.P15 is the complaint filed by the petitioner before respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent has not obstructed and has no intention to obstruct. We record the said submission. In case there is any obstruction by 3rd respondent, there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for the reclamation of land in Sy.No.36/1A-1 and 36/A2 of Balusserry village pursuant to Ext.P14 order of the RDO and Ext.P12 judgment as against any obstruction from the members of the 3rd respondent union. The writ petition is disposed of as above.