------------------- Petitioners in WPC No. 23566/13 and 30750/13 challenges the revenue recovery proceedings taken against them for having not implemented an order passed by the District Collector under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet land Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act'). The main contention urged by the petitioner in WPC No. 23566/13 is that while passing the order which is sought to be enforced, she being the owner of the property was not heard by the District Collector and no notice was issued to her. Petitioner in WPC No. 30750/2013 is her husband, who apparently appeared before the District Collector. But according to him, he is not the owner of the property and therefore, he has no obligation to comply with the directions issued.
2. It is also their common contention that the property now sought to be restored is a pond which cannot be restored at all.
3. WPC No. 14698/14 is filed by certain persons in the locality of the petitioners in the other cases seeking implementation of the order passed by the District Collector under Section 13 of the Act.
4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners, husband and wife in WPC No. 30750/13 have not challenged the order passed by the District Collector whereas in the writ petition they are only challenging in the revenue recovery notice issued against them alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by the District Collector. That apart, there is an alternate remedy available for the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the District Collector by filing a revision before the Government under Section 28 of the Act.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid submission, I am of the view that since questions of facts arise the consideration, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners in WPC No. 23566/13 and 30750/13 is to approach the Government by filing a revision so that the entire factual circumstances involved in the matter could be considered and appropriate orders passed.
6. As far as WPC No. 14698/14 is concerned, the implementation of the Collector's order will depend upon the out come of the decision that the Government may take in this regard in the revisions that the other petitioners may file before the Government.
7. In these circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of as under.
(1). The petitioners in WPC No. 23566/13 and 30750/13 shall file necessary revision before the Government in terms of Section 28 of the Act within a period if 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
(2). On receipt of such revision, the Government shall dispose of the same within a further period of three months from the date of filing the revision, after hearing the affected parties.
(3). Until such time, all proceedings against the petitioners in terms of the notice issued and the order passed by the District Collector shall be kept in abeyance. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall also maintain status-quo with reference to the nature of the property involved.
(4). In regard to WPC No. 14698/2014, the right of the petitioners to approach this Court for implementing the District Collector's order shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the Government in the revisions to be filed by the petitioners in the other cases. Their rights are left open to be adjudicated in the appropriate proceedings.
(5). If the petitioners fail to file revision as per clause(1) above, they will not get the benefit of this judgment.
Sd/-A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE lsn