IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18484 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.T.RAJESH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.P.T.RARICHAN, RESIDING AT 1/5047, OPP.OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NADAKAVU, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE, POST CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE 673020. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, POST CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE 673 020. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTOOLI, KOZHIKODE 673016. 4. P.T.RUGMAVATHI, W/O.HARSHAN, RESIDING AT EASWARAMANGALAM HOUSE, MANGOTTUVAYAL ROAD, KOTTOOLI, KOZHIKODE 673016. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.18484/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DT 21.2.2011. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY P.T.RANJITH. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18484 OF 2011 (I) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner and the 4th respondent are stated to be co owners of certain properties situated in RS No.5/2 and 5/3 of Kottooli Amsom, Parayancheri Desom of Kozhikode Taluk. It appears that OS No.258/11 filed by one of the co-owners in relation to the said property is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode. According to the petitioner, in the meanwhile, 4th respondent made Ext.P1 complaint before the 2nd respondent, pursuant to which Ext.P2 stop memo was issued. 2. Petitioner states that the parties to the proceedings have appeared and filed their objections in the matter. His case is that the proceedings initiated are under the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 and therefore, the 2nd respondent does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is on this basis, the writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction in the matter and that at any rate the proceedings are liable to be deferred until Ext.P5 suit is decided. WPC No. 18484/11 :2 : 3. If as stated by the petitioner, proceedings initiated are under Act 28 of 2008, petitioner is justified in the contention, and if that be so, the course open to the 2nd respondent is to transmit the proceedings to the District Collector, the competent authority under the said Act. On the other hand, if the proceedings are initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the 2nd respondent is the authority competent to deal with the issue. 4. Be that as it may, I do not wish to pronounce on the issue either way. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is not very clear whether the petitioner is a party to the proceedings and has entered appearance before the 2nd respondent and filed his objections raising question of jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. Petitioner being an affected party is entitled to enter appearance and raise his contentions. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition itself directing that it will be open to the petitioner to enter appearance WPC No. 18484/11 :3 : before the 2nd respondent, raise his contention on the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint, in which event, it is for the 2nd respondent to consider the same as a preliminary issue and pass orders in the matter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp