Vineesh vs The Village Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 16991 Ker

Kerala High Court

Vineesh vs The Village Officer on 20 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
     THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                      WP(C) NO. 17373 OF 2018


PETITIONER:

             VINEESH
             AGED 37 YEARS, S/O RAVEENDRAN,
             AYAKULANGARA HOUSE,PERINGOTTUKURISSI P.O.,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN:678 574.
             BY ADVS.
             SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
             SRI.K.N.ABHILASH

RESPONDENTS:

       1     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
             NO.2 VILLAGE, PERINGOTTUKURSSI,
             PALAKKAD,PIN:678 574.
       2     AZEEZ ABDUL RAHMAN
             AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. LATE ABDUL RAHMAN,
             AYAKULANGARA HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKURISSI P.O.,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN:678 574.
       3     SUBAIDA
             AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. LATE ABDUL RAHMAN,
             AYAKULANGARA HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKURISSI P.O.,
             PALAKAKD DISTRICT, PIN:678 574.
             BY ADVS.
             GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
             SRI.V.A.JOHNSON VARIKKAPPALLIL


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    20.06.2024,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.17373/2018

                                      2




                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                       --------------------------------
                      W.P.(C).No.17373 of 2018
                ----------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 20th day of June, 2024


                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to interfere with the illegal construction carried out by respondents 2 and 3 even after issuing Ext. P8 stop memo and to take appropriate action against them.

ii. To pass any appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, as and when prayed for.

(SIC)

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration,

the Government Pleader takes me through the statement filed

by the 1st respondent, paragraph 5 of which is extracted

hereunder:

"5. After having come to know that there are some illegal activities taking place in the Pond in dispute, the 1st respondent inspected the site and saw that there is a wall being constructed on the north west

bank of the Pond, (near the house which was built on the land which is also part of the Pond in dispute by the predecessor of the 2nd and 3rd respondents before 1990 itself. This is the house where the respondents 2 and 3 are dwelling along with their small children, which is situated in the north west side of the pond, very near to the pond). Since it is a violation of the provisions of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Conservation Act, 2008, the 1 st respondent had issued a Stop Memo dated 31.03.2018 No.78/20108, directing the 2 nd and 3rd respondents to stop all such illegal construction activities in the Pond. After having received the stop memo notice from the Village Officer, the 2 nd and 3rd respondents have stopped all construction activities in the Pond. It may also be noted that the Stop Memo dated 31.03.2018 is still in force and is not modified or revoked till this date. Besides, the 1st respondent is vigilant in ensuring that there are no illegal constructions being carried out any more in the Pond in dispute after the service of the Stop Memo issued to the 2nd and 3rd respondent on 31.03.2018."

3. From the above it is clear that the 1 st respondent is

vigilant in ensuring that there is no illegal construction being

carried out anymore in the pond after the service of the stop

memo issued to respondents 2 and 3.

If there is any illegal construction, the petitioner can

bring it to the notice of the 1 st respondent and if such a

representation is received, the 1 st respondent will do the

needful in accordance with law, with notice to the parties.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed

of.

sd/-

                                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV                                            JUDGE






                 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17373/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1:       TRUE COPY OF THE PURAMBOKE REGISTER
                  ISSUED    BY     THE    PERINGOTTUSSERI-2

VILLAGE RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE FORM F PERTAINING TO THE POND PROPERTY OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE PERINGOTUSSERY-II. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER PERINGOTTUKURISSI, DATED 18.11.2010 FORM F REGISTER, SKETCH AND MAHAZAR.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 25.7.2011 OF THE PERINGOTTUKURISSI GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 6.1.2014, PREFERRED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.9.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY PERINGOTTUKURISSI GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAING PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28.3.2018.

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF TEH STOP MEMO DATED 31.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTIONS BEING CARRIED OUT IN THE POND.