The court clarified the jurisdictional limits of local authorities regarding property use under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 5.58 Ares in Sy.No.1045/1 of Kothamangalam Village. Since the petitioner noticed that the property was classified as wet land as per the Data Bank, he submitted an application under the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for using the property for other purposes.

2. By the order at Ext.P1 dated 21.02.2022, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) accepted the application on the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.8,06,400/-. The Tahsildar also passed proceedings changing the description of the petitioner’s property as purayidam in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). The petitioner, on the basis of the afore, sought a building permit from the local authority for constructing a commercial building. On the basis of the building permit issued, when the petitioner had commenced construction, the 5^th respondent Village Officer issued Ext.P5 stop memo. It is seeking to challenge the stop memo issued as above that the petitioner has approached this Court through the captioned writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Peeyus A. Kottam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. N.B Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The stop memo at Ext.P5 has been issued only because, the Village Officer states that the petitioner had carried out certain development activities, on account of which there is blockage with respect to the flow of water in the property.

5. This Court notices that the development activities have been carried out as above on the basis of valid orders issued by the authorities under the provisions of Section 27A of the Act. Similarly, the petitioner had also obtained a building permit from the local authority.

6. On the face of the order at Ext.P1 as well as the building permit issued to the petitioner, in my opinion, the Village Officer had no jurisdiction to issue a stop memo in the nature of the order at Ext.P5.

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and quash Ext.P5 stop memo issued by the Village Officer.

Sd/-