IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1724 of 2011(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JAMAL, S/O.ABOOBACKER, THAMARACHALIL, DESHEEYAMUKKU, THRIKKAKARA P.O., PIN - 682 021. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.JALEEL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KODUNGALLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, KODUNGALLOOR, MUPPATHADAM P.O., PIN - 683 110. 2. SECRETARY, KODUNGALLOOR PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, MUPPATHADAM P.O., PIN - 683 110. 3. THE KODUNGALLOOR PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KODUNGALLOOR PANCHAYATH, MUPPATHADAM P.O., PIN - 683 110. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. R1 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.1724 OF 2011(M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, he is the owner of 30 cents of land covered by Ext.P1 title deed. It is stated that when he attempted to construct a godown, that was prevented by the Village Officer, who was issued Ext.P7 stop memo. It is thereupon that the writ petition has been filed. 2. While the petitioner is justified in contending that Ext.P7 stop memo does not contain the basis for having issued the same, the Government Pleader who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that, it was reported that the land is one to which provisions of Act 28 of 2008 applies and Ext.P7 stop memo was issued on account of the fact that the petitioner had attempted to make constructions in the said land. Government Pleader further submits that the matter has already been reported to the District Collector and that the District Collector is in the process of initiating proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid Act. WPC.No.1724 /2011 :2 : 3. Now that the proceedings under Act 28 of 2008 are being initiated against the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to prove before the District Collector that the land is one to which the provisions of the said Act do not apply. Therefore, I do not think that this court will be justified in interfering with Ext.P7 at this stage. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/