IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12482 of 2010(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. M/S.POPPYS INN PRIVATE LIMITED NO.1-B, APPACHI NAGAR, TIRUPUR-641 607, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR S.K.HARI ARUMUGHAN. 2. B.C. DOMINIC, A 205, MANCHESTER TOWERS, ABENISHI ROAD, COIMBATORE. BY ADV. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.P.GOPINATH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHIN. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMBALANGI VILLAGE, KUMBALANGI. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 12482 of 2010-I - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010. JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 communication by the Village Officer, styled as a prohibitory order, this writ petition has been filed. The property in question is having an extent of 1 acre 60 cents in Sy, Nos.424 and 425. The second petitioner entered into a development agreement dated 1.4.2004 for developing the said property to a tourist resort. Ext.P2 is the copy of the development agreement entered into between petitioners 1 and 2. The petitioners obtained a building permit also to construct the building. There was a stay by the Government which was revoked by Ext.P3. Much later, a prohibitory order was issued which was also revoked as per Ext.P4. 2. It is pointed out that the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Cochi had submitted a report to the Sub collector, Fort Cochi stating that an extent of 1 acre and 69 cents of land in Sy. Nos.424 and 425 is dry land and any construction in the said area is permissible. 3. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that it was issued based on a telephonic communication from the Sub Collector. Therein, the petitioner has been directed to approach the Sub Collector along with the documents wpc12482/2010 relied upon by him. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no reason for issuing Ext.P1 order, as various authorities at different stages considered such complaints and permission/licences have been cleared also. 5. Learned Govt. Pleader submits that as informed by the Village Officer itself, the petitioenr can approach the Sub Collector and the Sub Collector may be directed to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the petitioner will file an appropriate objection before the Sub Collector and on receipt of the same, action will be finalised by the Sub Collector after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/