Kerala High Court
Rebecca George vs District Collector on 3 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 13108 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:38641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13108 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 REBECCA GEORGE,
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O GEORGE, 230, METHAR NAGAR, CHANGAMPUZHA
NAGAR.P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682033
2 EOBIN,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O GEORGE, 230, METHAR NAGAR, CHANGAMPUZHA
NAGAR.P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682033
BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.P.R.REENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
2 SUB COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682001
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KADAMAKKUDY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682032
BY SMT.DEEPA V, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13108 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:38641
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 03rd day of June 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 stop
memo issued by the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioners and their brother are the owners
in possession of 8.48 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey
No.136/9-2, of the Kadamakkudy Village, Ernakulam,
District, covered by Exts.P5 to P8 documents. The said
land is classified as 'Purayidom'. However, the 2nd
respondent has issued Ext.P4 prohibitory order,
prohibiting the petitioners from using their property. The
action of the 2nd respondent is illegal and arbitrary,
especially in view of the law laid down by this Court in
Jessy Abraham v. The Land Revenue Commissioner,
Thiruvananthapuram (2022 (1) KLT 461). Hence,
Ext.P4 may be quashed.
2025:KER:38641
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader
has filed a memo producing the report of the Agricultural
Officer addressed to the 2nd respondent. As per the
report, the petitioners' property is not included in the data
bank due to some inadvertence. There is a likelihood of
the property being included in the data bank in the future.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Government Pleader.
5. Exts.P5 to P8 documents substantiate that the
petitioners' property has been classified as 'Purayidom'.
The respondents also do not dispute the fact that the
petitioners' property has not been included in the data
bank.
6. The respondents' contention is that, as per the
report of the Convenor of the 3 rd respondent (Agricultural
Officer), the petitioners' property has been inadvertently
omitted to be included in the data bank. Therefore,
Ext.P4 has been issued.
2025:KER:38641
7. As long as the petitioners' property is
classified as 'Purayidom' in the revenue records and is not
classified as 'wetland or paddy land' and included in the
data bank as postulated under the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act' for short), Ext.P4
stop memo is untenable. There can be no legal
impediment in the petitioners enjoying their property as
enjoined in law.
8. It is no longer res-integra in view of the law
laid down by this Court in Shanawaz Mytheenkunju v.
Village Officer, Keerikkad Village (2025(1) KHC 447),
that a Village Officer can issue a stop memo under Section
12 of the Act, only if the property is classified as paddy
land or wetland as defined under the Act.
9. In view of Exts.P5 to P8 documents, and the
report of the Agricultural Officer, I am convinced Ext.P4
stop memo is unsustainable in law. In the above
circumstances, the petitioners cannot be interdicted from
enjoying their property, which tantamounts to an
2025:KER:38641
infringement of their constitutional right guaranteed
under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, Ext.P4 stop memo is quashed and the
petitioners are permitted to enjoy their property in
accordance with law.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,
JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:38641
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13108/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2018
(1) KHC 250 [SURAJ K.S AND ANOR V. STATE
OF KERALA & ORS.]
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C).NO.5566/2021 DATED 09.09.2021
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF DECISION REPORTED IN 2021 (1)
KHC 337 [JALAL K.M. V. VILLAGE OFFICER,
KURUPPAMPADY AND ANOTHER]
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED (NIL)
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SUB COLLECTOR
TO THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
11.01.2021 ISSUED TO PHILOMENA
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
THANDAPER ACCOUNT, THANDAPER ACCOUNT
NO.10619 OF KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE 30.03.2021
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM
THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & VILLAGE
OFFICER KADAMAKKUDY DATED 29.07.2023
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
BASIC TAX REGISTER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, KADAMAKKUDY
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER ON 18.08.2023
