IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 13860 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- REV.FR.GEORGE KUTTY MICHAEL KANNAMPLAKKAL, 42 YEARS,S/O.MICHAEL KANNAMPLAKKAL, DIRECTOR,SACRED HEART ASHRAM,(DIVYAHRIDAYASHRAM), CHENNAIPARA,PEECHI.P.O.,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,KERALA. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.13860 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P5 a stop memo issued by Village Officer, this writ petition has been filed. Going by Stop Memo, the petitioner is restrained from excavating clay/mud from the property in question. The petitioner is the Director of Sacred Heart Ashram (Divyahrudayashram). According to the petitioner, he purchased 1.06 Acres of land in survey 21/p Mannamangalam Village. There is a fish pond which was constructed with the approval and sponsorship from the “Fish Farmer Development Agency”. The Chairman of the “Fish Farmer Development Agency” is the first respondent. Ext.P2 is the copy of the sale deed. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 will show that there is sanction/approval/sponsorship of the fish pond. 3. When the petitioner started cleaning activities, the third respondent and a few others came to the property and issued Ext.P5 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. While admitting this writ petition, this Court passed the following interim order dated 22/5/2009:- W.P.(C)No.13860 of 2009 2 “There will be an interim direction as prayed for. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall file an affidavit within two weeks indicating the details of the work actually done in the course of removal of mud mentioned in Ext.P4. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall remove mud from the pond only for the purpose of maintenance of the same and this order will not enable the petitioner to commercially exploit or sell the mud or clay taken out of the pond.” 5. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the matter. What is contended therein is that the property in question is Nilam and is surrounded by Nilam and Thodu and no sanction for digging or deepening the pond in the Nilam has been produced by the petitioner. 6. In the light of the contentions raised herein, it is only appropriate that the issue is left for a decision by the District Collector. The District Collector will hear the petitioner and take appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will file an appropriate representation before the District Collector along with copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj