IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9492 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. MOHAMMED ABDUL KABEER.U, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O U.MAMMY HAJEE, UNNIALUKKAL HOUSE, CHERIYAPARAPPUR, P.O.VETTOMPALLIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM. 2. THAHIRA KABEER, AGED 43YEARS, W/O MOHAMMED ABDUL KABEER, UNNIALUKKAL HOUSE, CHERIYAPARAPPUR, P.O.VETTOMPALLIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUNAVAYA. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 4. VELLADATH MOIDEEN, S/O.KUNHEEN, EDAKKULAM, TIRUVANAVAYA POST, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R.1TO3 SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.9492 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge Ext.P10 stop memo issued by the Village Officer, Thirunavaya, alleging violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. At the time of admission, this Court passed the following interim order: “Petitioners submit that, they have obtained a building permit to construct a building in the property purchased by them as per Ext.P1. According to them, it is a garden land and not a paddy field as wrongly assumed by the respondent [sic.], while issuing Ext.P10. If that be so, the petitioners will be free to start construction of the building, but the same will be at their risk and subject to the result of the writ petition.” 2. I am of opinion that after having issued Ext.P10 stop memo, the concerned RDO has a duty to pass final orders as provided under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, expeditiously. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned RDO having jurisdiction over the property in question, to pass final orders pursuant to Ext.P10 stop memo, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being w.p.c.9492/08 2 heard to the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent . In the meanwhile, the construction undertaken as per the interim order dated 3.4.2008, if continued, would be subject to the orders to be passed by the RDO and, if ultimately the order goes against the petitioners, the petitioners would be liable to demolish the same, subject, of course, to the right of the petitioners to challenge such orders in appeal and to obtain interim orders in appeal. If orders to be passed are adverse to the petitioners, the same shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioners to seek appellate remedies. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge