IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34876 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAINABA, W/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KANNIPOYIL HOUSE, PADANILAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.34876 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is the owner and occupier of 19.27 Ares(47.64 cents) of land in Re-Sy.No.290 in Block No.22 of Kunnamangalam Village in Kozhikode Taluk. Ext.P1 is the document showing the title to the property. The petitioner, wanted to construct a building in the property. Ext.P2 is the certificate issued by the Village Officer which evidences the fact that the above property are garden lands interspersed with permanent cultivation. Ext.P3 is the copy of the building permit issued by the concerned Panchayat. Ext.P4 is the copy of the Specification Report issued by the Engineering Supervisor. After he started the construction of the building, a stop memo was issued by the first respondent as per Ext.P5 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner contends that the stop memo issued by the Village Officer is without any jurisdiction. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. He submitted that the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer for appropriate orders especially as per the specifications contained in the stop W.P.(C)No.34876 of 2009 2 memo itself. 4. A reading of the stop memo reveals the fact that the same has been issued in the light of the instructions issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. The substantial question raised by the writ petitioner is that the nature of the property is not a paddy land and therefore objection raised now as per Ext.P5 cannot be sustained. 6. If the petitioner submits a representation before Revenue Divisional Officer in the matter, who is the second respondent herein, the second respondent will take a decision on the same in accordance with law and after considering Exts.P2 to P4 produced herein within a period of one month from the receipt of the same with notice to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj