IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5839 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ OUSEPH JOSEPH, AGED 82 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, VADASSERIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERY.P.O., KARIMANOOR, THODUPUZHA-685586. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI-685603. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI-685603. 4. THE THASILDHAR, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA-685584. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, NEYYASSERY, KARIMANOOR, THODUPUZHA-685586. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 5839 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3, the stop memo issued by the Village Officer, Neyyassery. This stop memo says that the petitioner has allegedly reclaimed the property in Sy.No.239/3 of Block No.37 of Neyyassery Village. It is on that allegation that the stop memo has been issued invoking the powers under Act 28 of 2008. While it is the contention of the petitioner that he has not reclaimed any property and that all that was attempted was to do tapioca cultivation, learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that complaints were received that the petitioner was attempting to reclaim the property and that it was based on the directions of the Tahsildar that the stop memo was issued. 2. Irrespective of the controversy between the parties, fact remains that Ext.P3 proceedings have been initiated invoking the provisions contained in Act 28 of 2008. Ext.P3 also shows that the matter has been reported to the Revenue Divisional Officer, and therefore, it is for the Revenue Divisional Officer to place the matter before the District Collector for concluding the WPC No. 5839/11 :2 : proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall forward the proceedings to the District Collector, who on its receipt shall issue notice to the petitioner and conclude the proceedings. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall forward the proceedings as above at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment and the District Collector shall conclude the proceedings without any further delay. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the respondents for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp