The petitioner challenged a stop memo issued regarding his land possession. The Court observed that the petitioner had already been granted a patta for the excess land during the pendency of the writ petition, thereby settling the dispute and closing the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/29TH KARTHIKA, 1937
WP(C).NO. 10981 OF 2012 (W)
PETITIONER:
K.BHAGEERATHAN, AGED 62 YEARS, MANJATH HOUSE, NEMENI, AMBALAVAYAL, SULTHAN BATHERY, WYNAD.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------
1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AMBALAVAYAL VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592.
2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WYNAD-673121
ADDL.4. T.P.KUNJIMUHAMMED S/O.ABU, AGED 64 YEARS, THEKKEPEDIKAYIL HOUSE, DEVIKUNNU, AMBALAVAYAL.P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/06/2012 IN IA 7767/2012.
RADDL.4 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO R1-R3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. T.J. MICHAIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).NO. 10981 OF 2012 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
DST
K. HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No.10981 of 2012
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of November, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and he is in possession and enjoyment of 5.1 cents of land in ReSy.No.823/Part of Ambalavayal Village by Ext.P1. Even though 4 cents of property was ordered to be assigned to him, 5.1 cents of property was given to him and the said granting of excess property was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent and proceedings were initiated to re-possess the excess 1.1 cents of land. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted an application for assigning the entire land in his possession and enjoyment. While so, the Government cancelled Ext.P1 on the ground that there was mistake in calculating the extent of land and the land was not utilised by the assignee. The petitioner challenged the said order in O.P.No.21649 of 1997 and
W.P.(C) No. 10981 of 2012
-: 2 :-
this Court disposed of the said petition as per judgment dated 20.7.2005 directing the Government to examine the issue and pass appropriate orders.
W.P.(C) No. 10981 of 2012
-: 3 :-
receipt of Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent had written to the 3rd respondent that the petitioner could be directed to remit an amount of Rs.88,000/-, towards the value of 0.0055 Hectares in his possession, by Ext.P5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had constructed three shop rooms measuring 600 sq.ft. in the property and the Panchayat numbered the said building. However, while the petitioner was proceeding with construction in respect of other two shop rooms less than 200 sq. ft. in area, the 1st respondent issued a stop memo on the ground that he did not get patta in his possession in respect of said land, by Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is challenged in this Writ Petition, on the ground that the same is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari calling for Ext.P7 and quash the same.
that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the
W.P.(C) No. 10981 of 2012
-: 4 :-
petitioner has been granted with patta in respect of 0.0055 Hectares, in addition to 4 cents of property,
which was granted earlier as per Ext.P2 patta.
counsel for the petitioner produced the patta in respect of the said property before this Court. Going by the said patta, it is seen that the competent authority had granted patta in respect of 0.0055 Hectares of property to the petitioner. Thus, it is seen that the dispute involved in this Writ Petition has been settled between the parties by issuing the patta to the petitioner.
Therefore, this Writ Petition will stand closed.
Sd/- K. HARILAL,
JUDGE
DST
//True copy//
P.A. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the stop memo should be allowed or closed given the subsequent grant of patta.
Whether the stop memo issued by the 1st respondent was arbitrary and illegal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Bhageerathan
The Village Officer, Ambalavayal
The Additional Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Mini Civil Station
The District Collector Wynad
T.P. Kunjimuhammed
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
