The Village Officer lacks jurisdiction to issue a stop memo under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the respondent No:3 to recall the stop memo issued to the petitioner which is wrong and illegal.

ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the Exhibit P6 order issued by the respondent No:3 iii) Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

iv) Issue such other Writ, order or directions, as may be necessary, in the facts and circumstances of the case ”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is the owner of the land having an extent of 3.64 ares of land in survey No.450 of Alangad Village, Paravoor Taluk ,Ernakulam District, is the submission. According to the petitioner, the said land is not included in the data bank maintained by the revenue department. It is also submitted that the petitioner has obtained site approval and building permit from the Kadaungallur Grama Panchayath Ernakulam, for constructing a residential house. Ext.P3 is the building permit. Thereafter, the Village OfÏcer issue stop memo, to restore the property to the original position. Ext.P6 is the stop memo. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayath.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Village OfÏcer has no jurisdiction to issue an order like Ext.P6. The counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.31795/2016.

5. The learned Government Pleader supported the impugned order. The learned Government Pleader submitted that a statement is also filed. In the statement, it is conceded that the property is not included in the data bank.

6. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the judgment relied on by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31795/2016. It would be better to extract the relevant portion of the same. After extracting Section 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, this Court observed like this in the above judgment. :-

“5. On a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is categoric and clear that the power conferred with the Village OfÏcer is only for stopping the illegal conversion of paddy fields. Apparently, the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P5 objection before the Village OfÏcer, Vazhakkad Village. It is, thus, contending that the notice issued by the Village OfÏcer, Vazhakkad Village to the extent directing the petitioner for restoration of the paddy field to its original position, cannot be sustained under the law that this writ petition is filed. 6. I find force in the said contention, basically for the reason that for ordering restoration of a paddy field, power is vested with the District Collector on and with effect from 30.12.2017 as per Section 13 of the Act, 2008; and prior to that, the said power was awarded with the Collector as defined under the Act, which includes other ofÏcials designated as Collector.

7. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the direction issued in the impugned Exhibit P4 notice directing the petitioner to restore the land is to be interfered with. However, the power of the Village OfÏcer to proceed in accordance with the stop memo is left open to be adjudicated after considering the objection submitted by the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part by setting aside the direction issued by the Village OfÏcer to restore the paddy field, however making it clear that the Village OfÏcer may proceed to adjudicate the matter taking into account Exhibit P5 objection submitted by the petitioner at the earliest, and any rate within a mont