SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44601

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
AJAYAKUMAR P – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 28895 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR, SHRI. ANOOP KRISHNA, SHRI.C.RAMAN, SRI.ANAND SANKAR, SMT.FARHANA KABEER, SMT.JENNY THANKAM
For the Respondents: SR.GP SMT. PREETHA K.K

Stop memos can only be issued for properties classified as paddy land or wetland per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

Headnote:The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, establishes regulations concerning the classification of land. In this case, the petitioner owned property classified as ‘Nanja’, not included in the data bank for wetland or paddy land. The court recognized that stop memos could only be issued if the land was classified appropriately under relevant law. The issuance of Exts.P6 and P7 was determined to be illegal and arbitrary, leading to their quashing. The petitioner was permitted to use the property legally as per the court's ruling.

Table of Content
1. property is classified as 'nanja' and not included in the data bank. (Para 2 , 5)
2. acknowledgment of the property's status in legal context (Para 3)
3. respondents concede that property is not in the data bank. (Para 4)
4. court affirms criteria for stop memos under the act. (Para 6)

Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to quash Exts.P6 stop memo and P7 show cause notice.

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of

8.34 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.131/7-4, 131/9-4, 131/10-8 of Ezhuvathuruthy Village, Ponnani Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The property is classified as ‘Nanja’ and included in the revenue records. However, the property is not included in the data bank prepared under Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act' in short). Nonetheless, the respondents have issued Ext.P6 stop memo and Ext.P7 show cause notice against the petitioner. Ext.P6 and P7 are illegal and arbitrary.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader concedes that the petitioner’s property is not included in the data bank.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s property is not included in the data bank either as paddy land or wetland.

6. It is no longer res-integra in view of the law laid down by this Court in Shanawaz Mytheenkunju v. Village Officer, Keerikkad Village ( 2025(1) KHC 447 ), that a stop memo can be issued under Section 12 of the Act, only if the property is classified as paddy land or wetland as defined under the Act.

As the property is not included in the data bank, I hold that Exts.P6 stop memo and P7 show cause notice are untenable. Accordingly, I quash Exts.P6 and P7 and permit the petitioner to use the property in accordance with law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top