Dismissed

Nishad Azeem v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Nov 2022WP(C)/22318/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of this writ petition where the petitioner sought to set aside stop memos issued by the Village Officer halting developmental activities. The court quashed the stop memos after the petitioner removed earth deposited on unauthorized land and undertook not to develop land beyond the sanctioned area, directing authorities to proceed against violations of the sanctioned site plans.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the Exts.P8 and P9 stop memos issued by the 5th respondent.

Nishad Azeem Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 22318 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

NISHAD AZEEM AGED 46 YEARS S/O. AZEEMUDHIN K. K, 'LAKE AVENUE', MANNAM P. O, NORTH PARAVUR, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 520.

¶7

BY ADVS. ANOOP V. NAIR RAMESH CHAND DEVI PADMA ADITHYAN EZHAPILLY A.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030.

¶11

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RDO, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 001.

¶12

4 THE THASILDAR (LR), PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 513.

¶13

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 513.

¶14

6 THE KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTUVALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 519 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

7 THE SECRETARY, THE KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTUVALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 519.

¶16

WP(C).No.22318 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

**8 K.C. VINOD KUMAR, KALLOOR HOUSE, MANAKKAPADY, KARUMALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 511. ADDL. MUHAMMED K. K R9 S/O. KHALID, AGED 42 YEARS, KADAVILAN, VALLUVALLI P. O, KOONAMMAVU, KOTTUVALLI PANCHAYATH – 683 518. ADDL.R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23-112022 IN IA 1/2022 IN WP(C) 22318/2022. BY ADVS. BABU KARUKAPADATH - SC ABDUL JALEEL.A M.A.VAHEEDA BABU P.U.VINOD KUMAR ARYA RAGHUNATH VAISAKHI V. T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ AJWIN P LALSON KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU P.LAKSHMI AYSHA E.M. M.A.SULFIA SRI. S.RENJITH - SPL.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.22318 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Based on the category change sanctioned by the

¶23

4^th respondent vide Ext.P4 from 'Nilam' to 'Purayidom', pursuant to Ext.P3 order passed by the 3^rd respondent under Section 27 C of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the 6^th respondent Panchayat granted Ext.P5 development permit to the petitioner for developing 38.86 Ares of land. Based on Ext.P5, the Panchayat has issued Ext.P6 land developing service plan and site plan. When there were obstructions from certain plot owners against the developmental activities done by the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17616 of 2022 and this Court, by Ext.P7 judgment, ordered police protection to the petitioner

¶24

WP(C).No.22318 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

for carrying out the developmental activities.

¶27

While so, the 5^th respondent, the Village Officer, issued Ext.P8 stop memo directing the petitioner to stop all developmental activities. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P8 and P9.

¶28

A report has been filed by the RDO, Fort Kochi as directed by this Court wherein it has been stated that on the basis of the complaints received, the RDO has inspected the site and found that the petitioner has deposited red earth in the property not covered by Ext.P4.

¶29

The petitioner has now produced Ext.P13 proceedings of the 5^th respondent to the effect that the petitioner has removed the red earth deposited in the property which was not covered by Ext.P4. He has also filed Ext.P12 affidavit stating that he will not carry out any developmental activities in the property

¶30

WP(C).No.22318 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

not mentioned in Exts.P3 and P4. The affidavit is

¶33

taken on record.

¶34

On the basis of the report filed by the RDO, Ext.P13 report of the Village Officer and the affidavit filed by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside Exts.P8 and P9 stop memos. It is made clear that, the petitioner shall carry out the developmental activities only in such extent of land as mentioned in Exts.P3 and P4. In case the petitioner carries out any developmental activities other than the property referred to in Ext.P4, respondents 3 to 5 shall proceed against the petitioner after necessary site inspection.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶37

SPR

¶38

WP(C).No.22318 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶42

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 62125210, DATED 13.12.2021 ISSUED FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPTS NO. KL07030611077/2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 26.05.2022.
EXHIBIT P2 (a)	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPTS NO. KL07030611078/2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 26.05.2022.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27 C.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.D2 -4368/2021(2) PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT SANCTIONING THE CATEGORY CHANGE IN THE RECORDS DATED 06.08.2021.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DATED 10.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT, TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LAND DEVELOPING AREA SERVICE PLAN AND SITE PLAN ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE PERMIT, TO THE PETITIONER, 10.05.2022.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) 17616/2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT, DATED 24.06.2022.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER AND THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, DATED 15.06.2022.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE CUM STOP MEMO
	ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 16.06.2022.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
	18.06.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶43

WP(C).No.22318 OF 2022

¶44

¶45

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21.06.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OVERSEER AND THE SECRETARY OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.

¶46

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THIS HON'BLE COURT, DATED 24-11-2022.

¶47

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT, SHOWING THAT THE RED EARTH MISTAKENLY DEPOSITED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROPERTY OF THE NEIGHBOURING OWNER HAS BEEN REMOVED, DATED 21-11-2022.

¶48

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:-

¶49

EXHIBIT R6 (a) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER NO.SC3-2237/2022 DATED 21/6/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶50

EXHIBIT R9 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 11/ 11/2022 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.

Nishad Azeem v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishad Azeem v. State of Kerala

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

Sindhu Vs the State of Kerala

C.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Shamnad K K Vs Geetha

Haseeb Haneef Vs the Sub Collector

Dominic Antony Vs Eloor Municipality

Ummer Bava E, Vs the Trikkalangode Grama Panchayath