IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36154 of 2008(D)
1. SASIDHARAN.M.K, S.O MADHAVAN, AGED 53
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER
4. THE TOWN PLANNER, ALAPUZHA.
5. MANNANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED
6. TAMARA REAL ESTATE HOLDING AND
For Petitioner :SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :17/12/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 36154 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 17th December, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved by construction by the 6th respondent
by converting wet land. According to the petitioner, on account of the
filling up of the wet land for the purpose of construction, the
petitioner’s property is being flooded with water, since the natural
water course is being obstructed by such filling up. The petitioner
therefore seeks the following reliefs:
“i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to
Exhibit P1 and P2 and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to
take immediate and effective steps to prohibit the filling up of the
paddy fields, wetlands and watercourses within the 13.19 acres of
land comprised in Sy.Nos. 479/4, 479/6, 479/12, 479/9/3 482/6
479/13, 479/8, 479/9, 479/11, 491/2, 1/17, 491/9, 491/8, 1/32,
490/9/2, 490/2/2, 490/4, 480/14, 480/4, 480/7, 490/2, 490/8, 490/9,
480/8/2, 480/8/1, 490/11, 490/7, 480/12, 480/3, 480/13, 480/11,
490/1/3, 480/15, 480/1/6, 480/6, 480/1/6, 480/6, 480/5, 480/10,
479/1/1, 491/7, 491/6 of Mannachery village in Alappuzha district
by the 6th respondent.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd and 5th
respondent to take immediate and effective steps to ensure that
the paddy fields, wetlands and watercourses which are converted
by the 6th respondent are restored and to take effective measures
to prevent flooding of petitioner’s property.”
2. As far as the first relief is concerned, the petitioner’s remedy
lies in filing an appeal as provided under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act
against the permit issued to the 6th respondent for construction. As
far as prayers (ii) and (iii) are concerned, the petitioner’s remedy lies
in approaching the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Collector as
provided under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The petitioner
submits that the petitioner has already approached the Revenue
Divisional Officer in the matter.
In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the
W.P.C. No. 36154/08 -: 2 :-
petitioner to challenge Exts.P2 and P3 in appeal and to pursue the
proceedings which have been initiated by the petitioner before the
Revenue Divisional Officer , this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.