LAWS(KER)-2015-1-14

PUNATHILTHAZHAM PUTHANVALLIVAYAL SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On January 07, 2015
Punathilthazham Puthanvallivayal Samrakshana Samithi Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by an unregistered organization claiming to consist of 4 residents associations of Edakkad in Puthiyangadi Village. The writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation. Their complaint is regarding reclamation of 2.705 hectares of land in Puthiyangadi Village by the 9th respondent, inter alia contending that the entire area is either wet land or paddy land as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to them, filling of the said area has caused obstruction to the free flow of water during rainy season and has affected the irrigation canal which passes on the northern side of the property.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, though this matter was taken up before various authorities, no action has been taken in the matter. The petitioner relies upon Exts. P1 and P2 communications issued by the Village Officer on 19.2.2013 and 21.7.2014 respectively indicating that as per the village records, the entire property is classified as "paddy land." The contention is that despite the said fact, building permit has been issued to the 9th respondent as per Ext. P4 decision.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the 9th respondent, a partnership firm. According to them, even before filing the writ petition, one of the members of the petitioner association has filed a suit as O.S. No. 627/2014 before the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode. No interim orders were passed in the said suit. At that time, another petition was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode. The petitioner was unable to obtain any interim orders and it is thereafter that this writ petition is filed. Therefore, according to the 9th respondent, the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has approached this Court when they were unsuccessful in getting orders in other proceedings. It is also alleged that the petitioner has forged Ext. P8 document and has changed the date as 13.3.2014, whereas the actual date is 13.3.2007.