IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No. 2421 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27556/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------ RAMAKRISHNAN,PURAMPALLU, P.O.INNGAL (VIA) VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 873 521 BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.I.K.RAJU SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, CALICUT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, INNGAL, PO INNGAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. CHANDRAN, KIZHAKKE MANAPPURATH P.O.INNAGAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. PADUVAYAL PRASAD, THEKKINEDATH HOUSE, P.O.,INNGAL,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 5. KIZHEKKE MANAPPURATH RAMAKRISHNAN P.O.,INNGAL,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 6. KIZHEKKE MANAPPURATH SURESH BABU P.O.,INNGAL,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT . 7. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAYYOLY POLICE STATION, P.O.MELADY,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & V.K.MOHANAN, J. ================================ W.A.No.2421 of 2008 =============================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T KOSHY, Ag.CJ. By Ext.P6 order, 1st respondent given permission to the petitioner to remove earth from a portion of the property of the petitioner for house construction. Additional Tahsildar, Koyilandy, reported that the property in the possession of the petitioner is at a height ranging between 12½ and 14 14 feet from the road abutting the property. 3rd respondent objected the same. Ext.P6 order was passed on 14.08.2008, after hearing both sides. While allowing Ext.P6, certain conditions were prescribed, so that the 3rd respondent would not be prejudiced by the removal of the soil by the petitioner from his property. It was specifically mentioned that when soil is removed to avoid any loss to the neighbours, a wall should be constructed and the petitioner should see that no danger is caused by removal of the soil and when the soil is removed, village officer should be informed, so that Village Officer can supervise whether conditions W.A.No.2421 of 2008 2 prescribed are complied with. It is his case that despite Ext.P6 order Village Officer issued Ext.P7 order which refers to RDO's orders dated 17.6.2008 and 18.6.2008. Both those orders are passed before Ext.P6 order dated 14.8.2008 which was passed after hearing both sides. Ext.R3(b) is only a letter send by the Tahsildar to RDO. But RDO has not revised Ext.P6 order and petitioner approached this Court only for implementation of Ext.P6 order. Learned Judge directed the RDO to pass further orders to implement Ext.P6 order. If Ext.P6 order is already passed, it is for the aggrieved parties to challenge the same. A subordinate officer cannot review Ext.P6 order. However, RDO can issue further orders on the basis of the report of Ext.R3(b) of the Tahsildar. But without Ext.P6 being reviewed, stop memo cannot be issued. Hence Ext.P7 stop memo issued by the village officer is set aside. Unless Ext.P6 is reviewed by the RDO and fresh orders are passed, petitioner can continue removal of soil provided conditions prescribed under Ext.P6 order are complied with. However, RDO is free to pass orders reconsidering his earlier order on the basis of subsequent report by the village W.A.No.2421 of 2008 3 authorities and Tahsildar. In view of the stop memo issued, the soil was not removed by the time limit prescribed in Ext.P6. One month's time is granted to remove soil from the property of the petitioner provided the conditions prescribed in Ext.P6 are complied with unless contrary orders are passed by the RDO within that time. J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE bkn/-