Varghese vs District Collector, Palakkad

N. Nagaresh, J

The petitioners, who hold landed property in Lakkidiperur-II Village in Ottapalam Taluk, seek to declare that the provisions of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 do not apply to the petitioners' land. The petitioners further seek to quash Ext.P1 order and

Ext.P2 stop memo.

The petitioners state that they are the absolute owners in possession of land bearing Block No.88, Re-Survey No.199/3, 199/6, 199/7, 199/8 and

199/9 situated in Lakkidiperur-II Village, Ottapalam Taluk. The property is a garden land, though it is described as 'Nilam' in Revenue records. The

petitioners would swear that the property was not 'Nilam' as on the date of enforcement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,

2008. However, some of the neighbours of the petitioners claimed right of way through the said property. The petitioners were compelled to file a suit

for injunction against the neighbouring land owners before the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam.

The petitioners state that the politically powerful neighbours influenced the Revenue officials. They contended that the land would fall within the

purview of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. On their influence, the Sub Collector, Ottapalam passed Ext.P1 order

dated 12.10.2020 directing the petitioners to open a way through the petitioners' property and restore the land to its original position. Ext.P2 stop memo

was issued by the Village Officer restraining the petitioners from conversion of their land. The petitioners submitted Ext.P3 objection to Ext.P2 stop

memo. The petitioners would submit that Exts.P1 and P2 were issued without any notice to the petitioners and without hearing them.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel

representing the 6th respondent.

A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that it has been issued on the basis of the complaint filed by the 6th respondent. Ext.P1 does not advert Ext.P3

reply given by the petitioners to the Village Officer. The counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the 6th respondent would concede that there

was no hearing of the matter preceding Ext.P1 order. In the circumstances, Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside and the 2nd respondent is compellable to

extend an opportunity of hearing to the parties to the dispute and issue a fresh order.

Therefore, Ext.P1 is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to decide the issue afresh, after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners

and the 6th respondent. The interim order passed by this Court on 19.10.2020 will continue to enure to the benefit of the petitioners till the 2nd

respondent takes a decision afresh, in accordance with law as directed above.