IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36917 of 2010(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K.MATHAI, S/O. KURIAKOSE, KEERANKUNNEL, ARATTUTHARA.P.O., MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT – 670 645. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT – 670 645. 3. THE MANANTHAVADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MANANTHAVADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY – 670 645. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================== W.P.(C) No.36917 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P1 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, 5 cents of land was converted in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. In that land, the petitioner has started to construct a building, on the strength of Ext.P2 building permit and plan. It is stated that, while so the Village Officer issued Ext.P3 stop memo, alleging that the construction undertaken is in violation of Ext.P1. It is also stated in Ext.P3 that, he has made a report to that effect to the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is challenging Ext.P3 the writ petition has been filed. 2. The case of petitioner is that construction has been made in the land which is converted as per Ext.P1 and that the construction is fully in compliance with Ext.P2 building permit and plan. 3. Gong by the statements contained in Ext.P3, the stop 2 W.P.(C) No.36917 of 2010 memo was issued for the reason that the construction was in violation of Exts.P1 and P2. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the authorities concerned, that the averments in Ext.P3 are factually incorrect. From the pleadings, it does not appear that the petitioner has taken such a course of action. Therefore in my view, at this stage, the writ petition seems to be premature. However, having regard to the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that, he is ready to start concreting work, it is necessary that the Revenue Divisional Officer, to whom the report is made should consider and decide whether it is necessary to continue Ext.P3 or not. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions :- That there will be direction to the petitioner to produce Ext.P1 order and Ext.P2 building permit and plan, along with other records if any, before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thereupon the Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider, whether the 3 W.P.(C) No.36917 of 2010 construction undertaken by the petitioner is in compliance with Exts.P1 and P2. It is directed that this exercise should be completed by the R.D.O. within 7 days of production of the afore said documents, along with a copy of this judgment and writ petition. Writ petition is disposed as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ami/