Kerala High Court
Dr.Prakash Sebastian vs The District Collector, Malapuram on 28 June, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 22910 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
DR.PRAKASH SEBASTIAN
PARAYARUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
NILAMBUR P.O.,NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM-676504.
BY ADV SRI.P.BABU KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM-676504.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM-676542.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.22910/2018
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.22910 of 2018
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing Ext.P4. ii. Issue a declaration that the petitioner has got every right to construct the road through his property for the better enjoyment of the property. iii. Issue any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.
(SIC)
2. Petitioner was served with a stop memo for the construction of a road to the shed in the property which is in the name of his son, who is working outside India is the submission. According to the petitioner, the property is a pacca coconut garden which is not included in the data bank and there is no water flow through the property. In the stop memo it is stated that the construction of road will cause WP(C).No.22910/2018 3 blockage of water flow. It is submitted that if any blockage of water flow occurs, the petitioner will remove that blockage at his own expense. Ext.P4 is the stop memo. Aggrieved by the same this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. As on the date of Ext.P4, it is an admitted fact that the property is not included in the data bank. This is clear from paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent. The Government Pleader submitted that it is a property which ought to have been included in the data bank. But that is not a reason to issue stop memo. When the property is not in the data bank and there is no violation of any statutory provision, the issuance of Ext.P4 is illegal.
5. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P4 can be set aside. But I make it clear that the competent authority is free to proceed in accordance with law, if the property is to be included in the data bank or wrongly shown in the BTR, with notice to the petitioner.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with following directions:
WP(C).No.22910/20184
1. Ext.P4 is aside.
2. It is made clear that the competent authority is free to proceed in accordance with law, if the property is to be included in the data bank or wrongly shown in the BTR, with notice to the petitioner.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
WP(C).No.22910/2018
5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22910/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 6.3.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH ENTRANCE TO THE
PROPERTY AND LOCATION OF THE SHED.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD AND LOCATION OF THE SHED DATED NILL.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.5.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.6.2018.