IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9896 of 2009(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.SHWAS HOMES PRIVATE LTD., 2ND FLOOR, G-363, GEORGE TECHNOLOGY ARCADE, K.C.JOSEPH ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SREENI PARAMESWARAN, S/O.M.G.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AGED 33 YEARS,VILLA NO1 MYSTIC BELLS,KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SMT.T.LAKSHMI SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAUMALOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.9896 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ Petition is against Ext.P10, a stop memo issued by the 2nd respondent. By this stop memo petitioner has been informed that the land in question is a paddy field and therefore developmental activities in violation of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order should be stopped forthwith. 2. Petitioner submits, referring to Exts.P1 to P3, that the land is a fully developed garden land and that its description in the revenue records that it is a paddy field is factually incorrect. Counsel also made available photographs in support of this contention. Irrespective of all this, fact remains that, in the revenue records, the land is described as a paddy field. If that be so, the developmental activities can be undertaken only in WP(c).N.9896/09 /2/ accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Therefore the petitioner shall file an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer and it is up to that authority to consider that application and pass orders thereon. As at present, there is nothing erroneous in Ext.P10 and leaving open to the petitioner to move the Revenue Divisional Officer, the writ Petition is disposed of. Petitioner submits that, necessary application shall be made to the RDO. If such an application is received, it shall be considered and orders passed as expeditiously a possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).N.9896/09 /2/