K. PANKAJAKSHAN Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a resident of the Thrikkunnapuzha Village at Karthikappally Taluk in Alappuzha District. His allegation is that there is a puramboke canal that caters to the irrigation and other water needs of the residents of the area and he alleges that the nature of the said canal is as per the definition of a "wetland" under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He accuses the 9th respondent of having illegally reclaimed portions of the said canal and he prays that the statutory Authorities be directed to invoke Section 13 of the Act to restore the canal to its original state.

(2.) I notice that the 9th respondent has vehemently opposed the factual allegations made against him in his pleadings and he states that a suit has been filed by him against the petitioner and the Revenue Authorities as O.S.No.272/2010, on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Haripad, which has been decreed in his favour. He says that the decree of the Munsiff's Court is one of injunction against the defendants in the said suit from obstructing his right of way, which includes the portions that are claimed by the petitioner herein to be part of the canal.

(3.) Whatever be the allegations or assertions, the parties are now making against each other, the fact remains that the canal in question may answer the definition of wetland under the Act. However, the question is whether factually there is a canal in the said area or whether it has already been reclaimed much before by others, as has been contended before me by the 9th respondent. As I have already indicated, these are factual matters, which cannot be decided affirmatively by this Court, while acting under writ jurisdiction and I feel it is best left to the concerned Authorities under the Act to consider and take a decision upon, after evaluating and assessing all the factors including factual and documentary.