Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013 A4TH BH WP(C).No. 1948 of 2013 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BHARATHAN RAMANATHAN, S/O.RAMANATHAN, KOLAZHY MADOM, KOLAZHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PALAYAM P.O. PIN ”
001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE P.O PIN - 680003.
3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE AYYANTHOLE P.O., PIN - 680003.
4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOLAZHY P.O., THRISSUR 68001 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.SOYUZ (SPL.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.1948/2013. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 12 7.2012 EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26 7.2012 EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22 8.2012 EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23 8.2012 EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19 12.2012 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19 6.2012. EXT.P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 1 6.2012. EXT.P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 17 4.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.1948 OF 201.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of August, 2013 JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent, under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act whereby the property belonging to the petitioner allegedly converted has been ordered to be restored, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no reason for having passed the above order and that the same is contradictory to the facts and figures and is under challenge.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents seeks to rebut the above factual particulars, however, adding that the petitioner is having an effective alternate remedy by way of revision, as envisaged under Section 28 of the Act.
4. In such circumstances, the petitioner is relegated to approach the first respondent by filing a revision petition and if any such W.P.(C) No.1948/2013 2 revision is filed within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be treated as a valid one and final orders shall be passed at the earliest and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of the revision petition. Status quo will continue till such time. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge. dpk /True copy/ P.S to Judge. W.P.(C) No.1948/2013 3