The requirement of due process and proper authority is crucial in land classification and regulation under the Kerala Conservation Act and CRZ notifications.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24 ^th day of November, 2025 These writ petitions are preferred by the owners of a property having an extent of 14.98 Ares comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.129/11 and 121/11-12 of Kumbalam Village, Kanayannur Taluk. The first writ petition, i.e., 12411 of 2019 is preferred challenging Ext.P8 stop memo issued by the Village Officer, whereas the second writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No.192 of 2022 is preferred challenging Ext.P11 communication issued by the Kumbalam Grama Panchayat whereby the renewal application for the building permit, which was earlier granted, has been declined on the reason that the property in question is included in CRZ -1B and therefore, awaiting CRZ clearance.

2. It is the case of the petitioners in WP(C)

No.12411 of 2019 that Ext.P8 stop memo issued by the Village Officer is without any authority, since the property, which is stated to be paddy land, was not included in the Data Bank published as per Ext.P6. It is further stated that prior to the issuance of stop memo, no other statutory steps were taken by the Village Officer. The property is described as ‘garden land - purayidam’ in the Basic Tax Register itself and therefore, it was a garden land from more than 100 years. There is no cultivation or any other agricultural activity being carried out in the property.

3. On the other hand, the additional 7^th respondent, who is the neighbour of the property owned by the petitioner, has preferred a counter affidavit, wherein it is specifically contended that as per the title deed of the property in question, it is recorded as paddy land and due to an error occurred on the part of the resurvey authorities, it happened to be recorded as ‘purayidam’ in the BTR. This is evident from Ext.R7(f) communication issued by the Tahsildar to the Village Officer, wherein it is specifically stated that due to an error occurred at the time of resurvey activities conducted, it happened to record as ‘purayidam’ in the BTR. As a follow up action, the Village Officer, Kumbalam also requested the Tahsildar, Kanayannur to take necessary steps to make corrections in the entries in digital records. Even the photographs produced as Ext.R7(h) show that the said area was waterlogged. The primary contention of the 7^th respondent is that due to the reclamation of the land, he was suffering from water logging in the area. This is the circumstance in which he is challenging the prayers in the writ petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader has filed a statement, wherein it is stated that as per the report of the Village Officer, the property in Re.Sy.No.129/11 is recorded as ‘purayidam’. However, in the settlement register, the land belongs to Nilam category. It was on this basis, the Village Officer, Kumbalam issued stop memo to the land owner. In the meanwhile, the Kumabalm Grama Panchayat, who is the additional 6^th respondent in WP(C) No.12411 of 2019, issued a building permit (Ext.P6 in WP(C) No. 192 of 2022). When the term of the building permit expired, the petitioner approached the Kumbalam Grama Panchayat for renewing the same. However, that was declined on the ground that the property in Re.Sy.No.129/11 was included in the notification under CRZ – 1B, and only after getting clearance from the Coastal Regulation Zone Management Authority, further steps can be taken with respect to the renewal of building permit.

5. I have heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these writ petitions, Sri.B.K.Gopalakrishnan, appearing for the party respondent, and also Sri.Shanavas Khan, the learned counsel for the Kumbalam Grama Panchayat. I have also heard Sri. M.P.Prakash, the learned counsel