IMPORTANT POINTS
If the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order of the 2nd respondent ordering restoration of the property to the original position, he can challenge that order by filing revision under Section 28 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, before the Principal Secretary and Agricultural Production Commissioner, Department of Agriculture Development and Farmers' Welfare, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram -695 001. The pendency of civil suits between the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 or the husband of the 6th respondent is not a bar for the 2nd respondent to exercise his powers under Section 13 of the Act for ordering restoration of the property to the original position and initiating prosecution against respondents 6 and 7 under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 order dated 06.02.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent District Collector and Ext.P9 order dated 15.03.2018 of the 3rd respondent Sub Collector (Revenue Divisional Officer), to the extent it affects the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to desist from initiating proceedings against him under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, based on Exts.P7 and P9 orders; a declaration that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, by respondents 2 and 3, based on Exts.P7 and P9 orders issued under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act will be subject to the orders to be passed by the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta in O.S. Nos.22 of 2017 and 73 of 2017; and a declaration that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, by respondents 2 and 3, based on Exts.P7 and P9 orders issued under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act is not sustainable in law.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner's father late Somanathan was holding absolute title, possession and enjoyment of 5.30 Ares of property in Block No.11, Re.Sy.No.548/7 of West Kallada Village. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the tax receipt dated 16.04.2018 issued by the 5th respondent Village Officer. The petitioner's father died on 16.02.2002, who is survived by his wife and children, who are enjoying that property and the residential building situated therein. Since there was no motorable way to that property, the petitioner along with the 6th respondent jointly purchased 2.43 Ares of property comprised in Block No.11, Re.Sy.No.548/8-3 of West Kallada Village, vide sale deed No.3887 of 2012 of the Sub Registrar Office, Sasthamcotta. The document marked as Ext.P2 is the tax receipt dated 16.04.2018 in respect of 5.53 Ares of property comprised in Block No.11, Re.Sy.No.548/8-2 of West Kallada Village, in the name of the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the tax receipt dated 16.04.2018 in respect of 2.43 Ares of property comprised in Block No.11, Re.Sy.No.548/8-3 of West Kallada Village, in the name of the petitioner and the 6th respondent.

3. It is alleged in the writ petition that the 6th respondent, contrary to the conditions in sale deed No.388 of 2012 of the Sub Registrar Office, Sasthamcotta and without the consent of the petitioner, sold her one-half right on the motorable way to the 7th respondent, by executing sale deed No.3014/2016 dated 08.12.2016 of the Sub Registrar Office, Sasthamcotta. When respondents 6 and 7 attempted to obstruct the petitioner's way, he filed O.S.No.22 of 2017 before the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta against them, seeking cancellation of that sale deed. The document marked as Ext.A4 is the plaint in O.S.No.22 of 2017. In the said suit, the Munsiff's Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the nature and lie of the property and to prepare a sketch. The document marked as Ext.P5 is the mahazar, report and sketch submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.22 of 2017. The husband of the 6th respondent, who is having property on the western side of the petitioner's property, filed O.S.No.73 of 2017 before the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta, against the petitioner, seeking prescriptive right of easement in respect of the motorable way, injunction and other consequential reliefs. The document marked as Ext.P6 is the plaint in O.S.No.73 of 2017.

4. During the pendency of O.S.Nos.22 of 2017 and 73 of 2017, the 2nd respondent District Collector issued Ext.P7 order dated 06.02.2018, in exercise of his powers under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, whereby the petitioner and the 6th respondent are directed to restore the original position of 2.43 Ares of 'nilam' (paddy land) in Bl