High Court of Kerala cautions public spirited persons from approaching the Court with piecemeal information and making unsubstantiated allegations against government officials as it disposes PIL against ‘Sobha Developers’ alleging conversion of land in violation of law in connivance with Government officials

Disposing of a Public Interest Litigation preferred by Mrs. Vidya Sangeeth, Member of the Thrissur District Panchayat seeking a direction to the official respondents (State of Kerala) to stop all conversion/filling up of paddy land forming part of Puzhakkal Padam, Kuttur Village in Thrissur Taluk and to stay all the construction activities conducted by real estate major Sobha Developers among others, to direct the Kolazhi Village Panchayat to cancel all permits granted to the realtors for constructing buildings and  further to direct an enquiry by the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau into the corrupt and illegal activities in the matter of filling up of paddy land, a Division Bench of the High Court has in a recent judgment, cautioned public spirited persons from approaching the Court with piecemeal information. 

 

The High Court of Kerala has cautioned against making unsubstantiated allegations against the officers of Government

The petitioner averred in her petition that about 19 acres of paddy land has been acquired in the name of three private companies (respondents 7 to 9). Against the same, certain neighbouring owners of paddy land had submitted a complaint as Ext. P1 on 15.5.2014 against the conversion of the paddy land. The petitioner submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the Village Officer issued stop memos to respondents 7 and 8 real estate developers. However, the petitioner alleged that no stop memo was issued to the 9^th respondent company even as filling activities were being mainly done by the said company.

This action of the revenue authorities, the petitioner had submitted, was a deliberate act to assist the 9^th respondent in filling up the paddy land. The petitioner also made a specific allegation against the 10^th respondent District Collector Smt. M.S. Jaya, who, according to her was assisting the illegal filling up of paddy land in the said area by the 9^th respondent company. According to her, despite the stop memo issued to respondents 7 and 8 companies, reclamation was being continuously done, which will affect the stability of the environment and water resources of the locality.

According to the petitioner, a representation was submitted by her before the District Collector, but despite the said representation also, no action was being taken by the District Collector and she is responsible for the alleged illegal acts and is also preventing other officers in taking appropriate action in time.

The official respondents filed a counter affidavit contending that the complaint preferred had been acted upon by the District Collector, and after hearing respondents 7 to 9, an order has been passed by the District Collector on 18.8.2014 as per which respondents 7 to 9 were directed to restore the land in question to its original position as paddy land since conversion was made recently and in violation of the provisions of Kerala Paddyland and Wetland Conservation Act, 2008. It was also stated by the official respondents that stop memo was also issued to the 9^th respondent on 10.6.2014 itself.

The High Court found that the petitioner feigned ignorance about any stop memo being issued to the 9^th respondent as the writ petition was filed on 23.7.2014, even as the stop memo had been issued to the 9^th respondent realtor before the filing of the writ petition on 10.6.2014. The Court said that even at the time when the writ petition was filed, appropriate action had been taken by the District Collector and the revenue authorities in this regard.

The Court held that “as far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, it is evident from the materials on record that appropriate steps had been taken by the District Collector based on Ext. P1 complaint and therefore there was no reason to seek the direction as sought for in the public interest litigation.”

The Court further said that the petitioner had made certain allegations against the present District Collector of Thrissur and the present Chief Secretary of the State. “Perusal of the counter affidavit as well as the order passed by the District Collector clearly indicates that such allegations were totally unwarranted and baseless. If the District Collector had not taken any action pursuant to Ext. P1, there was some justification to say that the District Collector failed to take any action, whereas the District Collector had directed issuance of stop memos…Being a Member of the District Panchayat, the petitioner ought to have obtained such vital information before filing the writ petition. The Supreme Court has, in ever so many decisions, deprecated the practice of public spirited persons in approaching the court with piecemeal information. This is also a similar instance where available materials were not collected and the pending proceedings has not been brought to the notice of this Court. As a Member of the Panchayat, the petitioner could have as well obtained necessary information from the office of the District Collector regarding the action taken pursuant to Ext. P1. No such attempt is seen made and she has rushed to this Court.”

The Division Bench further found that the imputations against the District Collector of helping the illegal activities of the real estate developers were baseless. The Division Bench comprising of Ag. Chief Justice, Mr. Ashok Bhushan and Justice A.M. Shaffique said “Public men should be more careful while making allegations against officers unless they have sufficient materials to substantiate the same. That apart, there are appropriate forums to give complaint against corrupt officials… there is no reason to make unsubstantiated allegations against the officers of Government. The allegations about corrupt practice should be borne out by records and person making allegations should be in a position to substantiate the same.” 

The Court declined to pass any further orders in the matter having regard to the fact that the cause projected had received the attention of the authorities under the Act and appropriate action has been taken in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act.