Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
SAJEEV.R – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 24053 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN
For the Respondents: SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN, SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL, SHRI.R.RAJPRADEEP, SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN (SR.), SRI.S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN, GP-NIMA JACOB
The court empowered the administrative authority to address alleged unlawful land reclamation under specific agricultural conservation laws.
Headnote:The petitioner sought directions from the District Collector regarding complaints on the illegal reclamation of agricultural land following the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petition and its corresponding requests were duly considered, noting that the petitioner had no grievance regarding a prior order. The Court directed a hearing on the complaint and stipulated a four-month decision timeline. The occupancy certificate for a building was made absolute as there was no dispute regarding its construction. The main issues revolved around land reclamation and administrative authority's duties under relevant legislation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner sought directions regarding land reclamation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court directed consideration of the complaint. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2026 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the
1st respondent District Collector to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 complaint, and also to quash Ext.P3 order, whereby 2.87 Ares of land in ownership and possession of the 9th respondent has been removed from the data bank.
2. When the matter was taken up for consideration the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no grievance in respect of Ext.P3 order removing the property from the data bank and is limiting the prayer for a direction to the District Collector to enquire on Ext.P8 as to whether the balance portion of the land which is having an extent of 15.48 Ares in ownership and possession of respondents 7 and 8 is being illegally reclaimed without obtaining necessary orders as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the 9th respondent has constructed the building after obtaining necessary permit from the local authority on the strength of Ext.P3 order issued by the RDO.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat also.
Taking into consideration the limited request made by the petitioner for a consideration of Ext.P8 in respect of the balance property excluding the property covered by Ext.P3 order as to whether any reclamation is made illegally without obtaining necessary permission from the authorities concerned, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as follows:-
I. The 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 representation after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent Nos.7, 8 & 9.
II. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after conducting a site inspection and after obtaining necessary report from the authorities concerned including the Agricultural Officer.
III. In the meanwhile, respondents 7 and 8 shall maintain status quo in respect of the subject property.
IV. It is brought to my notice that an interim order has been granted on 11.11.2022 directing to issue occupancy certificate and to number the building provisionally which is subject to the result of the writ petition. Since there is no dispute in respect of the construction of the building, which is admittedly done in the property which is covered by Ext.P3, the occupancy certificate and numbering of the building done pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 11.11.2022 is made absolute.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sbk/-
