SANJITH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein claims to be holding and possessing 4.05 ares of property covered by Ext.P1 deed and the property is stated to be predominantly a paddy field. The petitioner sought permission from the competent authorities for reclamation of the said landed property for the purpose of construction of residential house therein. Pursuant to Ext.P2 application dated 8.11.2011 made by the petitioner in that behalf before the local level monitoring committee constituted under the Kerala Paddy Fields and Wetlands Act, the Village Officer concerned submitted Ext.P5 report and thereafter, the district level committee resolved to grant permission to the petitioner for reclamation, based on the recommendation made by the local level monitoring committee, it is averred. Pursuant to this decision of the statutory authorities concerned, it is stated that the 2nd respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Alappuzha, issued Ext.P6 order dated 3.10.2012 granting permission to the petitioner for doing the reclamation work. Though Ext.P6 permit was valid for six months, it is stated by the petitioner that due to financial constrains, he could not undertake the reclamation work within the validity period of Ext.P6 permit. Accordingly, based on the petitioner's application for extension of the validity period of Ext.P6 permit, the 3rd respondent -Sub Collector, Alappuzha, issued Ext.P7 order dated 24.3.2014 extending the period of the permit by a period of one month. It is a case of the petitioner that though he had started the reclamation work pursuant to Ext.P7 proceedings, certain political activists came to his site on 13.4.2014 and obstructed the work undertaken on behalf of the petitioner and that the said political activists came to the spot and chased away the lorry drivers, etc., it is alleged. It is accordingly averred by the petitioner that the reclamation work came to a grinding halt and the petitioner was constrained to seek police protection. But by that time, the extended validity period of permit granted as per Ext.P7, also expired. Hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application dated 22.4.2014 before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, seeking further extension of the permit period by a further period of three months. It is in the background of the aforementioned factual matrix that the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition with the following prayers:

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S.Sanal Kumar and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.