K K MATHAI S/O KURIAKOSE Vs. VILLAGE OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND MANANTHAVADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the Petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P1 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, 5 cents of land was converted in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. In that land, the Petitioner has started to construct a building, on the strength of Ext.P2 building permit and plan. It is stated that, while so the Village Officer issued Ext.P3 stop memo, alleging that the construction undertaken is in violation of Ext.P1. It is also stated in Ext.P3 that, he has made a report to that effect to the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is challenging Ext.P3 the writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The case of Petitioner is that construction has been made in the land which is converted as per Ext.P1 and that the construction is fully in compliance with Ext.P2 building permit and plan.

(3.) Gong by the statements contained in Ext.P3, the stop W.P.(C) No. 36917 of 2010 memo was issued for the reason that the construction was in violation of Exts.P1 and P2. Therefore, it is for the Petitioner to satisfy the authorities concerned, that the averments in Ext.P3 are factually incorrect. From the pleadings, it does not appear that the Petitioner has taken such a course of action. Therefore in my view, at this stage, the writ petition seems to be premature. However, having regard to the submissions of the counsel for the Petitioner that, he is ready to start concreting work, it is necessary that the Revenue Divisional Officer, to whom the report is made should consider and decide whether it is necessary to continue Ext.P3 or not. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: