Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
CHACKO JOSEPH @ BIJU – Appellant
Versus
1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THANNEERMUKKOM NORTH VILLAGE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner's challenge against the stop memo is based on procedural grounds. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court sets aside the stop memo due to lack of factual evidence concerning the property's classification. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P7 stop memo issued by the 1st 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 2nd 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
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
