IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7261 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SMITHA MENON, VEENDAKALAM VEDU, CHERAI, KONGAD, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RADHAKRISHNA MENON, 15, KALIKA CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD ,KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-20. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KONGAD II, PALAKKAD BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.7261 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF MARCH, 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Exhibit P3 stop memo directing the petitioner not to continue with any construction in the paddy land, this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. According to the petitioner, she is the owner of 3.03 Acres of land in Re-survey Nos.269/7, 269/2, 270/3 and 237/7 of Kongad -II of Kongad Village in Palakkad District. The property was originally owned by her father and later by a registered assignment deed, he transferred the ownership to the petitioner. Various coconut trees along with other fruit bearing trees are grown in this property, apart from plantains. On the eastern side of the property, there is a Panchayat road. Beyond the Panchayat Road, paddy fields are also there. According to the petitioner, underneath the Panchayat road, there are slope sluices for taking water from the properties on the other side and by the operation of this sluices, water is spreading through the petitioner's property. The petitioner sought permission before the Revenue Divisional Officer by filing Exhibit P1 to clear this problem and to make appropriate constructions in the matter for free flow of water. A report was forwarded by the Village Officer as per W.P.(C)No.7261/10 -2- Exhibit P2 in the matter. According to the petitioner, the report justifies the grievance raised by her in Exhibit P1. 3. But, later the Village Officer issued Exhibit P3 directing the petitioner to stop the construction activities in the properties mentioned therein. 4. The petitioner complains that the Village Officer has no role in the matter and has no authority in the matter. It is also pointed out that the matter is still pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. In the light of these contentions, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to take appropriate decision on Exhibit P1 after hearing the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will be entitled to file objections to the stop memo and orders will be passed after considering the objection also. The petitioner will produce a copy of this Writ Petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 1st respondent, for compliance. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE dsn