Kalesh. M.K vs The Village Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 20953 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 21198 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1          KALESH. M.K.
               AGED 40 YEARS
               S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, MANGALATH HOUSE, PUTHANCHIRA,
               KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

    2          PUSHPAVALLI
               D/O.PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, KODIYATTIL HOUSE,
               PUTHANCHIRA, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
               P.R.REENA
               P.S.SIDHARTHAN
               MAYA M.



RESPONDENTS:

    1          VILLAGE OFFICER
               PUTHANCHIRA VILLAGE, PUTHANCHIRA P.O.,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 682.

    2          AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
               KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHANCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
               PIN - 680 682

    3          PUTHANCHIRA GRAMAPANCHAYATH
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MANIYANKAVU,
               PUTHANCHIRA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 682

               R3 BY ADV R.RAJ PRADEEP

               R1 & R2 BY SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


        THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   06.10.2021,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 21198 OF 2021

                                    2


                               JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed alleging Ext.P5 stop memo issued

to the petitioners. It is submitted that the 1 st petitioner had

purchased 50.58 Ares of land in Sy. No.144/5A 4-6, 5A 4-6-1 of

Puthanchira Village of Mukundapuram Taluk in Thrissur District by

Ext.P2 Sale deed. The 2nd petitioner is the owner in possession of

the property in the same village in respect of which the 1 st

petitioner has entered into an agreement for purchase of the said

property. It is submitted that both the properties are lying as

pokkali paddy land.

2. It is submitted that the petitioners had been

strengthening the bunds of the property in question after the

single crop pokkali paddy cultivation for the purpose of prawn

cultivation in the same farm. Ext.P5 stop memo had been issued

on 20.01.2020 directing the petitioners not to carry out any illegal

activities, which will interfere with the nature of the property. The

learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Ext.P1 judgment of

this Court to contend that even in cases where there is violation of

any legal provisions, a show cause notice will have to be issued

and the reply should be considered before stop memos are issued. WP(C) NO. 21198 OF 2021

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Ext.P6 reply had been immediately given by the petitioners

stating that there is no intention to change the nature of the

property in any manner and all that has been done was for

strengthening of the bund for prawn cultivation.

4. I notice that the extent of the property belonging to the

2nd petitioner, as mentioned in the writ petition and as shown in

Ext.P4 basic tax receipt differs. Ext.P4 basic tax receipt in the

name of Smt.Pushpaveni, D/o. Kodiyattil Pankajakshiamma covers

only an extent of 34.40 Ares in survey Nos.90/7, 88/4 and 114/5A

of Puthanchira Village of Mukundapuram Taluk. I also notice that

Ext.P5 stop memo is issued in respect of "properties in survey

Nos.88/4 and 114/5A" and even the extent of the property is not

mentioned therein.

5. Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I

am of the opinion that since Ext.P5 does not refer to any specific

unauthorized activity carried out by the petitioners and in view of

the fact that the petitioners specifically avers in Ext.P6 and also in

this writ petition that the petitioners does not intend to change

the nature of the land in any manner and it is only attempting to

strengthen the bund, the petitioners shall be permitted to carry

out all legal activity in the property in question, without changing WP(C) NO. 21198 OF 2021

the nature of the land in any manner. In case any illegal activity

is noticed in the property on inspections conducted by the Village

Officer, the Village Officer will be free to take necessary steps in

accordance with law.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

DK WP(C) NO. 21198 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21198/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2021 (1) KHC 337

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.781/1/2021 DATED 19.7.2021

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED 22.5.2020

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 8.2.2021

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.01.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 20.01.2020.