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
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:
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
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.
