IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Shanawaz Mytheenkunju - Appellant
Versus
The Village Officer, Keerikkad Village - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33656 OF 2022
Decided On : 20-01-2025
(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 12 - Writ petitions challenging stop memo and seeking reclamation of land - The property classified as 'purayidom' in Basic Tax Register (BTR) cannot be subjected to stop memo under the Act, 2008, as there is no illegal conversion of paddy land or wetland. (Paras 7 , 8 )
(B) Jurisdiction of Village Officer - The Village Officer lacks jurisdiction to issue stop memo when property is classified as 'purayidom' in BTR, irrespective of water logging or law and order issues. (Paras 7 , 8 )
Facts of the case: The petitioner in W.P.(c) No.33656 of 2022 challenged a stop memo issued for filling land classified as 'purayidom', while W.P.(c) No.39930 of 2022 sought reclamation of the same land.
Findings of Court: The stop memo was quashed as the Village Officer had no jurisdiction to issue it based on the classification in BTR.
Issues: Whether the stop memo was valid given the classification of the land and the jurisdiction of the Village Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the classification in BTR is paramount, and the Village Officer's actions were not justified under the Act, 2008.
Result: W.P.(C) No.33656 of 2022 allowed; W.P.(C) No.39930 of 2022 dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Since a common issue is involved in these writ petitions, both were heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. W.P.(C)No.33656 of 2022 is filed challenging Ext.P3 stop memo issued by the respondent, whereas W.P.(C)No.39930 of 2022 is filed seeking a direction to the official respondents to initiate appropriate steps to reclaim the nature of the land, which is in possession of the 5 th respondent(the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33656 of 2022), to its original position and for other consequential reliefs.
3. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33656 of 2022 is the owner and in possession of certain extent of property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. In Ext.P1, the property is classified as 'Purayidom'. The property was mutated and land tax was accepted as per Ext.P2. The contention of the petitioner is that some real estate dealers who reside near the property of the petitioner has approached the W.P.(C). Nos.33656 & 39930 of 2022 vendor of the Ext.P1 property to sell the same to them at a lower price and the vendor did not heed to their demands. After the purchase of the property by the petitioner also, they attempted to trespass and cause damage to the property and thereupon the petitioner has filed O.S. No.326 of 2022 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam and an order of interim injunction was also granted. As the property covered by Ext.P1 was an uneven land, the petitioner took steps to level the land by filling the same with gravel. While so, Ext.P3 stop memo was issued by the respondent Village Officer, though the petitioner apprised the respondent that as per the Basic Tax Register(BTR) the property is 'purayidom' and as certain places were waterlogged he was attempting to level the property. It is seen that an interim order was granted by this Court on 26.10.2022 against Ext.P3 stop memo.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.39930 of 2022 contending that the property is a wet land and the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (in short 'the Act, 2008') is applicable and since various complaints were received by the authorities regarding the W.P.(C). Nos.33656 & 39930 of 2022 property, Ext.P3 stop memo was issued by the 1 st respondent Village Officer stating that some areas seems to be wet land and directing stoppage of all further activities of the petitioner to fill up and convert the wet land, till final orders are issued by the concerned authorities.
5. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.39930 of 2022 is the neighbouring property owner of the 5 th respondent(petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33656 of 2022). The contention of the petitioner is that the property of the 5 th respondent falls under the provisions of the Act, 2008 and that the property was remaining uncultivated and fallow for the past few years and during the time of rain, the rain water from nearby properties and roads flows through drainage and reaches in the property in question and from there it flows to the panchayath drainage adjacent to the property. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 5 th respondent started filling up the property illegally and thereupon the petitioner and the other neighbouring property owners have approached the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam by filing O.S.No.342 of 2022 seeking a declaration that the property in question is a wet land and seeking a further W.P.(C). Nos.33656 & 39930 of 2022 direction to restore the property to its original position by removing gravel from the property and further submitted that the said suit is still pending consideration. While so, Ext.P6 stop memo was issued by the Village Officer stopping all the activities of the 5 th respondent for the conversion of wetland to dry land. Thereafter certain complaints were preferred by the petitioner, but no action has been taken by the authorities and in the said circumstances that t
The classification of land in the Basic Tax Register is authoritative, and a stop memo cannot be issued for 'purayidom' property under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The Village Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue a stop memo for property classified as 'purayidom', emphasizing the importance of the Basic Tax Register in determining land classification.
The classification of land in the Basic Tax Register is authoritative, and the Village Officer lacks jurisdiction to issue stop memos when the property is classified as 'purayidom'.
The issuance of a stop memo requires clear jurisdictional authority under the relevant land statutes, especially when property classifications are settled.
The court held that stop memos must be based on specific factual findings regarding property status under conservation laws.
A stop memo under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act must be substantiated with factual evidence regarding the property.
The Village Officer lacks authority to issue a stop memo under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The District Collector must consider all relevant evidence before passing orders affecting property rights under conservation laws.
The court determined that a stop memo issued under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act is illegal if the property is not included in the official data bank.
The court emphasized the importance of respecting previous judgments and orders, and the impermissibility of reopening concluded judgments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.