IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11066 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED RAFEEQ, S/O.C.P.MUHAMMEDALI, AGED 39 YEARS, PENTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KIZHUPARAMBA, ERANADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KIZHUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADDL.R2: CHERIAKKAN MASTER, FIT PERSON OF THE THRIKKLAYOOR DEVASWOM, RESIDING AT THONNATH HOUSE, P.O. KEEZHUPARAMBU, AREEKKODE VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.5.2010 IN WPC 11066/10) ADV. MR.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R MRS.PRABHA R.MENON FOR R2 MR. I.V. PRAMOD GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11066 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DTD 7.10.2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD 23-10-2008 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD 20-2-2010 WITH RESPECT TO EXT.P1 AND P2 PROPERTY. EXT.P4; COPY OF CASH MEMORANDUM DTD 1-3-2010. EXT.P5; COPY OF STOP MEMO DTD 24-3-2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF TOBJECTION DTD 18.4.2010 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 5-5-2010 BEFORE THE RESONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD 5.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE SKETCH DTD 19.2.2010 PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R2(A): COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.84/1996. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.11066 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P8 stop memos issued by the Kizhuparamba Village Officer directing the petitioner to stop construction activities in the properties allegedly belonging to the petitioner, since O.S.No.84/96 is pending before the Civil Court between the petitioner and the additional 2nd respondent Devaswom in respect of the property. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the Village Officer has no powers to issue orders like Exts.P5 and P8 especially since this particular property is not involved in the said suit. It appears that the additional second respondent Devaswom has raised a dispute in respect of the property in question. But that does not enable the Village Officer to issue orders like Exts.P5 and P8. If the Devaswom has any case that the petitioner is not entitled to hold the property, it is for them to seek appropriate reliefs from the Civil Court. W.P.(c)No.11066/2010 2 In the above circumstances, Exts.P5 and P8 are quashed. This is without prejudice to the right of the 2nd respondent Devaswom to seek their remedies in respect of the property against the petitioner by filing appropriate suits before the appropriate Civil Court. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.11066/2010 3