High Court Kerala High Court

M.George Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 3 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
M.George Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 3 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37379 of 2009(N)


1. M.GEORGE ABRAHAM, AGED 59 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. OMANA GEORGE, W/O.M.GEORGE ABRAHAM,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

4. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORY COMMITTEE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.HARIDAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :03/06/2010

 O R D E R
                                 S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                         ==================

                         W.P.(C).No. 37379 of 2009

                         ==================

                    Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010

                                 J U D G M E N T

The petitioners claim to be the owners of certain properties. The

petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged action of the Principal

Agricultural Officer, Tahsildar and Village Officer for the alleged

interference with the enjoyment of the properties of the petitioners

purportedly in exercise of powers under the Kerala Conservation of

Paddy Land and Wet Land Act. The petitioners seek the following

relief;

“Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ order or direction commanding the respondents not to enter into or
conduct agricultural operations in properties of petitioners covered by
Exhibit P1 directly or indirectly in exercise of powers.”

2. So far no action has been taken against the petitioners. I

have no reason to believe that the respondents would take action

without complying with the procedure prescribed under the Act. When

notice is issued in respect thereof, it is perfectly open to the petitioners

to raise their contentions in answer to the same. The competent

among the respondents can pass final orders in the matter only after

hearing the petitioners. If any adverse order is passed, the petitioners

have got an alternate remedy by way of revision before the

Government. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to

entertain this writ petition. Therefore, leaving the petitioners to seek their

w.p.c.37379/09 2

remedies as and when an adverse order is passed, this writ petition is

dismissed. However, I direct the respondents to take further action

only after issuing a notice to the petitioners and hearing them.

Sd/-

sdk+                                               S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                               P.A. to Judge