1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the District Collector under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.
2. Petitioners in W.P.(C)No.30499 of 2013 are the owners of the property in question and petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28617 of 2013 is only a contractor who is alleged to have filled up the said paddy land belonging to the petitioners in the other writ petition.
3. The main contention urged by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.30499 of 2013 is that they were not heard in the matter. Notice had been issued actually in a wrong address and therefore they were unable to participate in the proceedings. The W.P.(C)Nos.28617 & 30499 of 2013 -:2:-
contention urged by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28617 of 2013 is that as per the provisions of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of a contractor to restore the property to its original possession and at any rate, orders should be passed only against the holder or the person in possession of the property.
4. Statement has been filed by the learned Government Pleader inter alia stating that the Collector had passed the impugned order after hearing all the parties concerned and the materials produced would indicate that the owner of the property was also heard in the matter. But, this fact is disputed by the petitioner by stating that, though a person appeared and produced title deed to indicate that he is not the actual owner of the property, no steps were taken to that effect.
5. Having regard to the above controversial situation, I am of the view that the entire matter has to be re-considered in accordance with the procedure prescribed. In the aforesaid circumstances, W.P.(C)Nos.28617 & 30499 of 2013 -:3:-
this writ petition is disposed of as under:
The District Collector shall re-consider the entire matter on merits after hearing all affected parties by serving notice to them. The entire process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until such time, there will be a direction to the parties to maintain status quo.
A.M.Shaffique, Judge.
sl.