The petitioner herein claims to be holding and possessing 4.05 ares of property covered by Ext.P1 deed and the property is stated to be predominantly a paddy field. The petitioner sought permission from the competent authorities for reclamation of the said landed property for the purpose of construction of residential house therein. Pursuant to Ext.P2 application dated 8.11.2011 made by the petitioner in that behalf before the local level monitoring committee constituted under the Kerala Paddy Fields and Wetlands Act, the Village Officer concerned submitted Ext.P5 report and thereafter, the district level committee resolved to grant permission to the petitioner for reclamation, based on the recommendation made by the local level monitoring committee, it is averred. Pursuant to this decision of the statutory authorities concerned, it is stated that the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Alappuzha, issued Ext.P6 order dated 3.10.2012 granting permission to the petitioner for doing the reclamation work. Though Ext.P6 permit was valid for six months, it is stated by the petitioner that due to financial constrains, he could not undertake the reclamation work within the validity period of Ext.P6 permit. Accordingly, based on the petitioner's application for extension of the validity period of Ext.P6 permit, the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector, Alappuzha, issued Ext.P7 order dated 24.3.2014 extending the period of the permit by a period of one month. It is a case of the petitioner that though he had started the reclamation work pursuant to Ext.P7 proceedings, certain political activists came to his site on 13.4.2014 and obstructed the work undertaken on behalf of the petitioner and that the said political activists came to the spot and chased away the lorry drivers, etc., it is alleged. It is accordingly averred by the petitioner that the reclamation work came to a grinding halt and the petitioner was constrained to seek police protection. But by that time, the extended validity period of permit granted as per Ext.P7, also expired. Hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application dated 22.4.2014 before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, seeking further extension of the permit period by a further period of three months. It is in the background of the aforementioned factual matrix that the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition with the following prayers: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider Ext.P9 application forthwith and grant extension of the Ext.P6 permit.
ii. Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S.Sanal Kumar and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. It is seen that the petitioner was initially granted permission for doing the reclamation work as per Ext.P6, which was valid for six months. It is also noted that the 3rd respondent- Sub Collector was convinced of the genuineness of the request of the petitioner for getting further extension of the validity period of permit and this resulted in the issuance of Ext.P7 order dated 24.3.2014, whereby the period of the permit was extended by one month. It is further seen that the petitioner was constrained to approach the police authorities as per Ext.P8 series seeking police protection, due to the alleged obstruction of the work by certain political activists. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the monsoon rains start by the end of May, 2014, it will be extremely difficult for the petitioner to get the reclamation work completed. In the circumstances, it is ordered that the competent authority among respondents 2 and 3 shall immediately take up for consideration the request of the petitioner submitted as per Ext.P9 dated 22.4.2014 and pass appropriate orders thereon within six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner or his representative may also be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the respondent authority concerned before a decision is taken on the request in Ext.P9. Since the respondent authorities were convinced about the bona fides of the petitioner in the previous occasions for grant of extension of the validity period of the permit as per Ext.P7 and since it appears that the petitioner has not misused the permission granted to him, it is ordered, in the interest of justice, that until the final decision is taken on Ext.P9 or until 31.5.2014, whichever is earlier, the petitioner shall be permitted to do the reclamation work in the property covered by Exts.P6 and P7. This is ordered only as a temporary arrangement, in the interest of justice, keeping in view the fact that monsoon rains may start by the beginning of June 2014. It is made clear that it is for the competent authority among respondents 2 and 3 to consider all the relevant aspects of the matter before the final decision is taken on the request of the petitioner in Ext.P9.
With the aforesaid directions and observations, the Writ Petition stands finally disposed.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS , JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge