Stop memos impeding construction based on misclassifications in land records cannot be upheld under statutory provisions.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner required to construct a commercial building in a property owned by her, extending to 22.66 Ares, in Re.Survey Nos.224/2-2 and 224/2-3 of Vazhappally West Village. It is not in dispute that a building permit was also issued by the local authority. However, when the petitioner started to construct the building, stop memos at Exts.P3 and P4 were issued by the Village Officer, the 3^rd respondent herein, essentially stating that in the settlement register the property was described as “Nilam”, on account of which the entry in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) may be a mistake. Therefore, the stop memos were issued, interdicting the petitioner from carrying out the further constructions in the property till such time a clarification is obtained in the matter. Later, an application filed by the petitioner for levelling the property was also rejected by the Tahsildar (Land Records) as evidenced by Ext.P8 order dated 15.03.2023. A reading of this order would also show that originally in the BTR, the property was described as “Purayidam”, however, the said entry requires correction in view of the entries in the settlement register. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge the stop memos issued as above, as well as the order at Ext.P8 referred to above.

2. Heard Smt.S.Indu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Ramlath A. v.

Village Officer, Punnapra Village Office [2025 KHC 2218] has already considered an identical issue wherein a stop memo was issued with respect to a property which was described in the BTR as Purayidam on the basis of the entries in the settlement register. This Court has categorically found that, under the provisions of the statute, no such stop memo could be issued

4. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the stop memos at Exts.P3 and P4 could not be sustained. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P4 are set aside.

5. Similarly, with respect to the consideration made in Ext.P8 also, in my opinion, the matter requires to be considered by the 1^st respondent District Collector, especially in the light of the principles laid down by this Court, with reference to the relevancy of the settlement register in the afore referred judgment. So as to facilitate the above, Ext.P8 issued by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent District Collector to consider the matter afresh, after granting the petitioner also an effective opportunity of being heard and also taking into account the principles laid down by this Court in Ramlath A. (supra) referred to above. Needless to say that the 1^st respondent District Collector would also be entitled to carry out a personal visit of the property, as also the surrounding areas for considering the prayer made by the petitioner as above. The orders as above shall be issued by the 1^st respondent District Collector, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition would stand disposed of as above.

Sd/-