The High Court upheld a stop memo issued to maintain status quo pending a statutory appeal against land reclamation permission, directing the District Collector to decide the appeal within one month.
Writ petition disposed; stop memo upheld; District Collector directed to decide appeal within one month.
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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2015/30TH SRAVANA, 1937H
WP(C).No. 9321 of 2015 (M)
PETITIONER:
SIRAJ T.I., THACHAYIL HOUSE, VAZHAKULAM.P.O., KALLELIMOOLA CHAMBARAKY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, ROOM NO.388, MAAIN BUILDING, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM-683 544.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER
6. SEETHI MARAKKAR CHIRAYAKKATTIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKULAM.P.O., KALLELIMOOLA, CHAMBARAKY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 105.
R4 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI. P.K. SOYUZ. R6 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 9321 of 2015 (M)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
------------------------------------EXHIBIT P1 - COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P8 - COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28.02.2015.
EXHIBIT P9 - COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.2015.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(a) - COPY OF RECEIPT FROM THE OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.09.2014.
EXHIBIT R6(b) - COPY OF REPOT ON 18.09.2014 OF 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R6(c) - COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 30.03.2015 ISSUED BY KATHIROL PADASEKHARA SAMITHY. EXHIBIT R6(d) - PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY OF 6TH RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R6(e) - COPY OF COMPLAINT MADE BEFORE THE RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXHIBIT R6(f) - COPY OF APPEAL DATED 27.02.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
skr
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
== == == == == == == == == == == W.P.(C).No.9321 of 2015
== == == == == == == == == == == Dated this the 21st day of August, 2015
JUDGMENT
Challenge in the writ petition is against the issuance of Ext.P9 stop memo in respect of reclamation of 1.62 Ares of property belonging to the petitioner, by the 5th respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had purchased the property in 2013 and had sought permission for reclamation of the same for construction of a residential house. The petitioner submits that the property is only 4 cents in extent and that the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act had recommended the petitioner's application to the District Level Authorised Committee which had, by order dated 18.02.2015, which is produced and marked as Ext. P6, permitted the reclamation on certain conditions appended to the said order. It is stated that Ext.P6 was preceded by Ext.P4 and P5
-2-
W.P.(C).No.9321 of 2015
certificates issued by the Village Officer, stating that the petitioner is not in possession of any other land in the village suitable for construction of a residential house The petitioner would contend that after the grant of permission by the District Level Authorised Committee by Ext.P6, the Village Officer is incompetent to issue a stop memo in the nature of Ext. P9.
2.The 6th respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that he is the neighboring land owner and has 13.4 ares of paddy land in Re-survey No.397/2 of Vazhakkulam Village, Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam District, and that he had on coming to know that the petitioner was taking steps for the reclamation of the adjoining land, preferred Ext. R6(a) compliant before the 3rd respondent which was duly forwarded to the Village Officer for report with the endorsement “Village Officer to issue stop memo if illegal
-3-
W.P.(C).No.9321 of 2015
reclamation is noticed”. Thereafter, he states that Ext.R6(b) report was summited by the Village Officer dated 18.09.2014 stating that the property now sought to be reclaimed is in the close vicinity of the property owned by the 6th respondent who is conducting paddy cultivation in about 13 Ares of land possessed by him. It is also stated that if the 4 cents of property is reclaimed by the petitioner it will create water logging in the property of the 6th respondent. He has also produced Ext.R6(c) certificate in support of his contention that he is conducting agricultural operations. He states that on coming to know of Ext.P6 order of the District Level Authorised Committee, he had preferred a statutory appeal under Section 9(6) of the Act before the District Collector, the 3rd respondent. Ext.R6(f) produced along with I.A.No. 8308/2015 is the appeal preferred by the 6th respondent.
-4-
W.P.(C).No.9321 of 2015
-5-
W.P.(C).No.9321 of 2015
17.09.2014 seeking orders preventing the reclamation on the ground that it would lead to water logging in his property and difficulties in his agricultural operations. However, Ext. P6 order has been issued by the District Level Authorised Committee on 18.02.2015. Against Ext. P6 order, the 6th respondent has preferred a statutory appeal as Ext. R6(f). It is the petitioner's contention that even if such an appeal had been preferred against the order of the District Level Authorised Committee, the Village Officer could not have issued Ext.P9 stop memo.
-6-
W.P.(C).No.9321 of 2015
purpose of the appeal will be defeated and the adjudication rendered meaningless. In the above view, the stop memo, even though it is issued by a subordinate officer, cannot be said to be an abuse of power. I am not inclined to set aside Ext. P9 stop memo which is issued to facilitate the proper consideration of the appeal. However, the adjudication cannot be prolonged since the petitioner's application is for construction of a house.
-7-
W.P.(C).No.9321 of 2015
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE
skr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the issuance of a stop memo by the Village Officer to maintain status quo during a statutory appeal constitutes an abuse of power.
Whether the District Collector is directed to dispose of the pending statutory appeal expeditiously.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Siraj T.I.
State of Kerala
Agricultural Production Commissioner
District Collector
Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu
Seethi Marakkayar Chirayakkattil House
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
