IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2820 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- V.A.MUHAMMED BASHEER, VADAKKEDATH KUMMANAM P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.A.D.SHAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENGALAM (SOUTH) KOTTAYAM. 4. GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 5. NOUSHAD S/O.ABOOBAKER, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE KUMMANAM P.O. KOTTAYAM. 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 2820 OF 2009 (I) ==================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims that by Ext.P1, his father in law had given him a plot of land on lease. It is stated that by Ext.P2, the 4th respondent allowed the petitioner to make a fish pond in the land covered by Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, he is not removing any sand from the plot in question. While the petitioner commenced work in pursuance to Ext.P2, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 stop memo. It is also stated that subsequently as per Ext.P4, the sand available at site is proposed to be auctioned on 24/1/2009. It is aggrieved by Exts. P3 and P4, the writ petition is filed. 2. Although the petitioner has been granted permission as contended by him as per Ext.P2 proceedings of the 4th respondent, having regard to the fact that by Ext.P3 notice, the Village Officer has stopped further work by the petitioner, I feel it is only appropriate that the petitioner files his objection to Ext.P3 issued by the 3rd respondent. This the petitioner shall do in response to Ext.P3, and if such an objection is filed by the petitioner within one week from today, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon. It is directed that subject to WPC 2820/09 :2 : the filing of the objection as above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance until the 3rd respondent decides on Ext.P3 as directed above. 3. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp