The court held that stop memos must be based on specific factual findings regarding property status under conservation laws.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P7 stop memo issued by the 1^st respondent – Village Officer.

2. I have heard Sri.Athul, representing Sri.B.Pramod, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.Sylaja S.L, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. As noticed earlier, the challenge in this writ petition is only against Ext.P7 stop memo issued by the Village Officer. A reading of Ext.P7 stop memo would show that the same has been issued on the premises that the property “appears” to be a wet land. On the basis of the afore, this Court notices the BTR at Ext.P5, as per which the property in question is described as “purayidam”. This Court also notices Ext.P6 certificate issued by the 2^nd respondent, pointing out that the property covered in the BTR and Ext.P5 has not been included in the data bank. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that prima facie, Ext.P7 cannot be sustained.

4. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that, even if any stop memo can be issued with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, that can be issued only with specific reference to the factual position as regards the actual state of affairs of the property.

In the afore circumstances, Ext.P7 stop memo cannot be sustained. Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed setting aside Ext.P7. However, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the right of the respondents to issue a fresh orders / stop memos with actual details may be left open. Taking note of the said submission, respondents are permitted to issue a fresh orders / notice, strictly in accordance with law, if so advised.

Sd/-