Disposed

Surjith v. Village Officer

Kerala HC13 Jan 2016WP(C)/444/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered a writ petition challenging a stop memo issued by the Village Officer. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Additional Tahsildar for property demarcation and measurement to resolve disputes regarding potential encroachment. Upon revocation of the memo, the petitioner must not reclaim land for purposes other than constructing a boundary without permi

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to approach the Additional Tahsildar within two weeks for demarcation; upon findings, the Village Officer shall revoke the stop memo.

Surjith Vs Village Officer — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 444 of 2016 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SURJITH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, KILLIKULANGARA HOUSE, KOOLIMUTTAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV. SMT.P.R.REENA

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLIVATTOM VILLAGE, VALLIVATTOM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 124.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

mbr/

¶14

WP(C).No. 444 of 2016 (E)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶17

P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 22215/2012 DATED 14/02/2016.

¶18

P2TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF VELLANGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶19

P3TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DTED 05/11/2014.

¶20

P4TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 29/09/2015 ISSUED BY THE VELLANGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶21

P5TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE TEMPORARY BOUNDARY AND THE GRANITE PROTECTION WALL CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS FOUNDATION FOR THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY BOUNDARY.

¶22

P6TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER ON 01/01/2016.

¶23

P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01/01/2016.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶29

***************************************************************************** W.P.(C) No. 444 of 2016

¶30

****************************************************************************** Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner approached this Court challenging a stop

¶33

memo issued by the Village Officer, Vallivattom. It is referred

¶34

in the stop memo that the petitioner has illegally reclaimed a

¶35

'nilam'. The petitioner’s case is that he is only attempting to

¶36

put a boundary across his property by constructing a boundary

¶37

wall. Therefore, the stop memo is unsustainable.

¶38

Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is also attempting to encroach upon canal puramboke and therefore the Village Officer is justified in issuing the stop memo. The petitioner has already approached

¶39

the Village Officer to demarcate and measure his property.

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 444 of 2016 2

¶41

This Court is of the view, the petitioner shall approach the Additional Tahsildar of the competent jurisdiction within two weeks. The Additional Tahsildar shall demarcate and measure the petitioner's property within a further period of two months. If it is found that the proposed construction is to protect the petitioner's property and the petitioner did not encroach upon any canal puramboke, the Village Officer shall revoke the stop memo. However, it is made clear that in the event, the stop memo is being revoked, the petitioner shall not reclaim the land other than for constructing the boundary, without any permission from the competent authority.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶45

Surjith v. Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjith v. Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Rani Abraham Vs Dr.M.Jayaprakas

A.M.Kareem Vs Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies

S.K. Aniyan Vs Santhamma

Nizamudeen a Vs State of Kerala

Nandini Sudhakara Menon Vs the Village Officer, Methala Village Office

K.Chandra Babu Vs the District Collector