Abida Mouge vs The Deputy Collector
2022 Latest Caselaw 3987 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 12357 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          ABIDA MOUGE
          AGED 27 YEARS
          D/O.MOHAMMED KORIMAUGE (LATE), HOUSE NO.90, WARD
          NO.1, KENDIPARTY VILLAGE, MINICOY ISLAND, UNION
          TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682559.

          BY ADV P.DEEPAK



RESPONDENT:

          THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR
          MINICOY, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, MINICOY
          ISLAND - 682559.

          SHRI.SAJITH KUMAR - SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12357 OF 2022              2

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who claims to be holding certain

properties on lease from the respondent - Lakshadweep

Administration impugns Ext.P6 "Stop Memo" issued by

the said respondent asking to stop construction of

her dwelling house, on the allegation that she is

making a new one and therefore, in contravention of

the lease terms.

2. Shri.P.Deepak, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, vehemently explained that his client

is not constructing a new house, but is only

reconstructing an earlier one and that too, with

financial assistance from the respondent, which is

evident from Ext.P2. He, therefore, argued that

Ext.P6 "Stop Memo" is without any purpose and in

fact, has been issued without proper application of

mind, thus praying that it be interdicted.

3. After contending so, Shri.P.Deepak further

submitted that, by way of abundant caution and

though his client was not required to do so, she has

also preferred Ext.P5 application before the

respondent for conversion of the user of the property

and prayed that same be directed to be considered in

its proper perspective, adverting to the fact that

she was always residing in the said property, in a

house which has subsequently been destroyed.

4. In response, Shri.Sajith Kumar - learned

Standing Counsel for the respondent, submitted that

petitioner is reported to be constructing a large

house even though her original dwelling house was

only about 80 sq. mtrs. in area. He argued that the

action of the petitioner is, in violation of the

lease agreement, which is manifest from the fact that

she herself has preferred Ext.P5 application for

conversion of its user; and thus contended that she

cannot be allowed to make any further construction in

violation of Ext.P6 "Stop Memo". He, however, added

that competent Authority of the respondent is willing

to consider Ext.P5 application, after hearing the

petitioner, within a short time frame.

5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is

evident that, on one hand, the petitioner asserts

that she is only reconstructing an existing house in

the property in question with an area of abut 80 to

90 sq. mtrs., though the allotted area is more than

350 sq. mtrs.; while, on the other hand, the

respondent says that such construction is in

violation of the lease terms.

6. That said, it is also without doubt that

petitioner has made an application, namely Ext.P5,

for conversion of user of the property, which would,

at least, prima facie, indicate that she is also

aware of the impediments facing her.

7. I am, therefore, of the firm view that

petitioner must await further orders on Ext.P5

application preferred by her at the hands of the

competent Authority of the respondent, before making

any further construction because, if, eventually same

is to be dismissed or found against her, the entire

purpose of reconstruction would be rendered otiose.

This is more so because, admittedly, she is making

the reconstruction with the finance given by the

competent respondent also.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and

direct the competent Authority of the respondent to

take up Ext.P5 application of the petitioner and

dispose it of, after affording her an opportunity of

being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order

on it as expeditiously as is possible, but not later

than three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment.

Needless to say, any further construction to be

made by the petitioner will be only as per the

decision to be taken by the afore Authority in terms

of my directions above; however, with a further

clarification that if final orders are not issued

within the afore time frame, she will be at liberty

to reconstruct strictly in accordance with the

earlier specifications, but not exceeding the

existing construction, de hors Ext.P6.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/5.4

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12357 OF 2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S FULLY DAMAGED HOUSE

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF LIST OF BENEFICIARIES ENTITLED TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR FULLY DAMAGED HOUSES DUE TO CYCLONE OCKHI.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BANKER'S CHEQUE DATED 14.11.2018.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF THE FULLY DAMAGED HOUSE, THE LOCATION SKETCH AND ALSO THE DETAILED PLAN OF CONSTRUCTION APPROVED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER (CIVIL), LAKSHADWEEP PWD, MINICOY.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.1.2022 FILED UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE LACCADIVE, MINICOY & AMINDIVI ISLANDS LAND REVENUE AND TENANCY REGULATION, 1965.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 7.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.