ABDUL HAMEED KHAN Vs. THE SUB COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, removal of the same from the data bank constituted under the aforesaid Act, pendency of application seeking permission for utilization of the property for different purposes other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operations and so also challenge made by certain people of the locality, against, permission granted to remove the property from the data bank. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to pass a common judgment. Facts discernible from WP(C)No.19584/2018 and documents thereunder are relied upon for the disposal of the writ petitions. The fate of the other two writ petitions will depend upon the decision taken in this writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner in WP(C)No.19584/2018 and 12669/2018 is one and the same person. In WP(C)No.19584/2018 the challenge made is against Ex.P15 stop memo issued by the third respondent, Village Officer, on the ground that, the Village Officer has no jurisdiction or authority to issue the order, since the Local Level Monitoring Committee has already taken a decision to exclude the property from the data bank constituted as per Act, 2008 and further that the same is published in the Kerala Gazette dated 25.6.2018.

(3.) Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- Petitioner and his wife are owners of an extent of 4 Acres 21 cents of land lying contiguously in Survey Nos.214, 215 and 2016. According to the petitioner, petitioner is the owner of 296 cents of dry land located in Survey No.215 of Thrithala Village, Pattambi Taluk, Palakkad District and the petitioner's wife is the owner in possession of 24.5 cents of property purchased by her as per Ext.P2 document of SRO Thrithala. Petitioner is also the owner of 41 cents in Survey No. 215 and 54 cents in Survey No.216 of Thrithala Village. The land is reclaimed more than 25 years ago and there are number of coconut trees standing in the property aged 22-25 years. The total extent of the property owned by the petitioner and his wife in Survey No.215 is 3 Acres 23 cents. That apart it is submitted that, there has been no paddy cultivation in the locality for the last more than 25 years. Being an 'A' class contractor under the Public Works Department, petitioner had undertaken the maintenance and repair of several important roads in Thrissur, Palakkad and Malappuram Districts. It is further pointed out that, petitioner has executed agreement with the Government for the purpose of improvement work/tarring of Chalissery-Peringode road, Cheruthuruthy-Perumpilavu road etc., etc., evident from Exts.P4 to P8 agreements. Petitioner had established a stone crushing unit after securing licenses and permits in the properties comprised in Survey Nos. 215 and 216 for the purpose of his business. The said stone crushing unit is functioning from 1993 onwards. License up to 30.6.2018 dated 18.5.2018 is produced as Ext.P9(a). While so, petitioner wanted to establish a tar mixing plant and for establishing the same loans are raised from Service Co-operative Bank. Petitioner intended to establish the tar mixing plant in the property situate in Survey No.215 and before that he had collected and stored materials such as metal and M-sand in the adjacent property belonging to him situated in Survey Nos.214/1, 214/2 and 214/3. At that time, at the instance of certain vested interested persons, the third respondent Village Officer issued a stop memo alleging that petitioner is illegally filling and reclaiming the properties, which are paddy fields and the same is in violation of the provisions of Act, 2008.