YOUSAF HAJI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4, a stop memo issued by the second respondent, preventing the petitioner from reclaiming of the land mentioned therein.

(2.) According to the petitioner, way back in 1984, petitioner had obtained Ext.P1 permission from the first respondent in terms of the provisions under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. It is stated that, based on Ext.P1, the land was already reclaimed and that the petitioner's son has constructed a house in the reclaimed land and is residing in the land in question for the last several years. Photographs produced by the petitioner, prima facie, support the aforesaid plea. It is stated that he wanted to raise the level of a portion of the land and for the said purpose, he filled his land with soil removed from an area where a new road is under construction, and that at that stage, Ext.P4 stop memo has been issued.

(3.) If the facts are as stated by the petitioner, he is prima facie justified in contending that Ext.P4 should not have been issued. However, in my view, on the receipt of Ext.P4, it was open to the petitioner to explain the facts to the second respondent and according to the counsel, a reply has already been given.