Disposed

Shaji.K. v. the District Collector

Kerala HC23 Aug 2022WP(C)/19185/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging a Stop Memo issued for filling land. The court directed the petitioner to produce the Building Permit before the Village Officer to determine if construction violated the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to produce the Building Permit along with representation before the Village Officer within a specified period.

Shaji.K. Vs the District Collector — Kerala HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 19185 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

SHAJI.K. AGED 45 YEARS S/O SUKUMARAN, MANNARKUNNUMAL, MERIKUNNU, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 012.

¶7

BY ADVS. T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE- 673 020.

¶10

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

¶11

3 THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

¶12

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEVAYUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶13

W.P(C) No.19185 of 2022 ]

¶14

¶15

5 THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE - 673 505.

¶16

SMT.SURYA BINOY SR.GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P(C) No.19185 of 2022 ]

¶19

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Dated this the 23^rd day of August, 2022

¶22

The petitioner is owner of two plots lying adjacent to each other in Chevayur Village in Kozhikode Taluk of Kozhikode District. According to the petitioner, both the pieces of land are not included in the Data Bank. It is certified by the Agricultural Officer that the lands are not included in the Data Bank.

¶23

The previous owner of the land was granted Building Permits for construction of residential buildings. After purchasing the property, the petitioner obtained Building Permit to construct a commercial building, as evidenced by Ext.P3. While the construction was in progress, the Village Officer has issued Ext.P5 Stop Memo.

¶24

In Ext.P5, the Village Officer alleged that by filling up the land, the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008.

¶25

W.P(C) No.19185 of 2022 4 ]

¶26

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 Stop Memo.

¶27

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is constructing a commercial building having less than 40 Square Metres. Therefore, it cannot be said that the construction made by the petitioner and filling up of the land necessary for such construction, are illegal or violative of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008

¶28

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶29

The Senior Government Pleader submitted that the Village Officer has caused inspection of the premises and it was found that the total area of reclamation was about 141.4 square metres.

¶30

From Ext.P5, it is seen that the Village Officer has

¶31

found that the petitioner is filling up a paddy land unauthorisedly. Ext.P3 is a Building Permit granted by the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation to the petitioner. As per

¶32

W.P(C) No.19185 of 2022 5 ]

¶33

Ext.P4, it is seen that the area of construction of the

¶34

petitioner is 40 square metres only.

¶35

Since the petitioner holds a Building Permit for construction, the Village Officer is bound to consider the Building Permit also while deciding whether there is any violations of the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder.

¶36

In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to produce the Building Permit along with a representation before the Village Officer in response to Ext.P5 Stop Memo. On receipt of such representation and supporting documents, the Village Officer shall consider as to whether the construction is in violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 and pass consequential orders within a further period of two weeks.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶39

smm/27.08.2022

¶40

W.P(C) No.19185 of 2022 ]

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY 31.08.2021	DOCUMEN OF SRO	T NO: 1949/2021 DATED CHEVAYUR.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY 31.08.2021	DOCUMEN OF SRO	T NO: 1950/2021 DATED CHEVAYUR.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY 08.06.2022	OF THE	TAX RECEIPT DATED
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY 09.11.2018 RESPONDENT	OF THE ISSUED TO THE	REPLY DATED BY THE 5TH PREVIOUS OWNER.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY 23.02.2021 MUNICIPAL OWNER.	OF THE ISSUED CORPORA	PERMIT DATED BY THE KOZHIKODE TION TO PREVIOUS
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY 22.03.2022 MUNICIPAL PETITIONER	OF THE ISSUED CORPORA .	PERMIT DATED BY THE KOZHIKODE TION TO THE
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY 05.01.2022	OF THE ISSUED	STOP MEMO DATED BY THE 4TH
	RESPONDENT	TO THE	PETITIONER.

Shaji.K. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji.K. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. A.V. Sajeev, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub Collector

Dr. Afnas T.P. Vs Dr Y. Lekshmi Sarayu

Yahoo Mk Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Naijin Mathew, Vs State of Kerala

Ramesh Vs the Kodungallur Municipality

Wlson S.I Vs Kannur Municipal Corporation