NAZIM P.S Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondents 1 to 3 to ensure restoration of land illegally reclaimed by the 6th respondent comprised in Survey Nos.78/2-1, 78/5-3-1, 78/2-1, 78/2-5, 78/5-4, and 108/2B of Alangad Village, Parur Taluk, Ernakulam District, to its original position, in accordance with the order passed as per Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Act, 2008'), and further to declare that Exts.P3 and P4 building permits issued by the 4th respondent in favour of the 6th respondent are illegal, since it is in contravention of Sec.235L of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Sec.14 of the Act, 2008. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) The 6th respondent is the owner of the above specified land purchased during the year 2011-12 as per Exts.P1 and P2 title deeds. The nature of the property was described as water logged and wetlands in the said documents and 'paddy field' in the BTR. The land was included in the draft data bank of Alangad, prepared by the 5th respondent under the Act, 2008. The 6 th respondent illegally reclaimed the property in 2012 violating Ext.P3 prohibitory orders passed by the 2nd respondent. When the District Collector directed to restore the land to its original position, 6th respondent claimed that it was converted much before the commencement of Act, 2008. Therefore, 6th respondent was directed to approach 5th respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) for re-classification of the land as per their claim. Case of the petitioner is that, the claim was rejected by the 5th respondent confirming that it is a paddy field as per the definition of the Act, 2008, and enlisted in draft data bank of Alangad Grama Panchayat, evident from Ext.P11 proceedings. Therefore, according to the petitioner, 5th respondent is bound to restore the land to its original position as per the provisions of Sec.13 of Act, 2008, and in accordance with Ext.P6 order passed by the District Collector.

(3.) The 6th respondent filed a revision before the 1st respondent, challenging Ext.P6 on the ground that they were not given proper notice in correct address and thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.31008 of 2013, seeking direction to consider the revision petition. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate decision in the revision petition within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, 'status quo' was directed to be maintained till such time, evident from Ext.P7 judgment. The 1st respondent proceeded with the matter and has issued a notice for hearing on 07.04.2015. However, the 6th respondent did not appear on the said date and again filed W.P.(C) No.22524 of 2015, which was disposed of as per the judgment dated 05.08.2015, directing the 6th respondent to appear before the District Collector on 17.08.2015.