Disposed

Benny Mathew v. Village Officer, Mulanthuruthy Village

Kerala HC2 Dec 2019WP(C)/13087/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Village Officer to hear the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within two weeks with respect to a stop memo impeding construction, applying the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Village Officer to pass appropriate order within two weeks after hearing, else stop memo to be inoperative.

Benny Mathew Vs Village Officer, Mulanthuruthy Village — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.13087 OF 2018(I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BENNY MATHEW S/O MATHEW, AGED 56 YEARS, KARAPPALIL, AIMS P.O.,EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 VILLAGE OFFICER, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 314.

¶11

2 THE TAHASILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 314.

¶12

3 AGRICULTURAL OFICER KRISHIBHAVAN, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM-682 314.

¶13

G.P. SRI. MANURAJ K.J.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.13087 OF 2018 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P9-Memo issued by the Village Officer, Mulanthuruthy, as per which, he has been asked to cease construction in his property - comprised of 98.40 Ares in Survey No.151/5 of the Mulanthuruthy Village - alleging that his property appears to be, in all its attributes and characteristics, a 'Paddy Land', and therefore, that further verification is necessary.

¶18

The petitioner asserts that the

¶19

property in question is not included in the Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, under the provisions of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and that, as is evident from Ext.P2, it has been described as a 'Purayidom', even in the Basic Tax Register. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be set aside.

¶20

Pleader -Shri.Manuraj K.J., submitted that he

¶21

has got instructions that the entries in Ext.P2

¶22

WP(C).No.13087 OF 2018 3

¶23

are not accurate because, there is a mistake in

¶24

the Survey Number. He says that the Authorities are therefore, now proposing to take appropriate action and prays that such liberty may be granted to them; further praying that Ext.P9 be not interdicted.

¶25

Even when I hear the learned Government

¶26

Pleader on the afore lines, it is indubitable that, going by Ext.P9, the Village Officer has issued the said Memo based on a suspicion and nothing more. Obviously, therefore, the Village Officer will have to complete the proceedings after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and issue him an appropriate order, without any further delay.

¶27

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the Village Officer, Mulanthuruthy, to hear the petitioner and issue an appropriate order pursuant to Ext.P9, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and I clarify that if no order is issued to the petitioner within the time granted herein, Ext.P9 will become

¶28

WP(C).No.13087 OF 2018 4

¶29

inoperative and the petitioner will thereupon be entitled to make further construction based on the Building Permit and consents which he has already obtained.

¶30

Needless to say, if the Village Officer issues any further order pursuant to the directions in this judgment within the time frame granted herein, the petitioner will be at liberty to invoke all remedies, including by approaching this Court again, if the said order is to his detriment in any manner.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

MC/2.12.19

¶35

WP(C).No.13087 OF 2018 5

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 5.1.2018 IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID PROPERTY OF PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF BASIC TAX REGISTER IN CONNECTION WITH PROPERTY OF PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH WITH CERTIFICATE DATED 12.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 9.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA BANK PREPARED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ACT 28 OF 2008 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 5.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY FROM WHERE PETITIONER TAKE THE EARTH FOR LEVELING.
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION DATED 4.4.2018.
EXHIBIT P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION DATED 4.4.2018 REGARDING THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PETITION.
EXHIBIT P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 3.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S E	XHIBITS:
NIL
MC

¶39

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Benny Mathew v. Village Officer, Mulanthuruthy Village

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benny Mathew v. Village Officer, Mulanthuruthy Village

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Gopi Vs the State of Kerala

Sunny P.K. Vs State of Kerala

Ambrose.K.T Vs Environmental Engineer

C.T.Harilal Vs the Sreekrishnapuram Gramapanchayat

Ponnakkambat Premalatha Vs State of Kerala

Dr.M.K.Muhammed Iqbal Vs Palakkad Municipality