IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31039 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- YOUSAF HAJI, S/O.AVARAN HAJI, AGED 78 YEARS, PERAYIL HOUSE, TIROORKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SMT.M.T.SHEEBA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALAMBUR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31039 of 2010 D ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T 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 WPC.31039/10 : 2 : 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. 4. If that be the situation, it is directed that the first respondent will enquire into Ext.P4, duly adverting to the facts disclosed by the petitioner in his reply and pass final orders in the matter, with notice to the petitioner. This, the first respondent shall do, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks