Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
ELITICA CERAMICS AND CLAY WORKS – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 23623 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For the Respondents: GP-NIMA JACOB
Court affirmed procedural rights for property development, balancing local authority oversight and prior permissions.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged a stop memo issued under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, claiming earlier permissions for construction. The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments following communication from the District Collector. The interim order was made absolute, leading to the closure of the writ petition. The judicial analysis centered on procedural adherence and local authority discretion.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges a stop memo on development rights. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 stop memo issued by the 4th respondent.
2. Petitioner submits that the property is covered by Ext.P2 order dated 20.01.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent, wherein the petitioner has been permitted to make necessary application before the local authority for construction of a building. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P5 communication, wherein the 1st respondent has stated that since the property is noted as converted land in the data bank, no action could be taken on the basis of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008.
3. When the matter came up for consideration on
18.12.2020, this Court passed the following order:
“Admit.
Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
In the light of Ext.P5, Ext.P3 will remain stayed. It is however, made clear that this order will not preclude the local Panchayat from interdicting the activities of the petitioner referred to in the writ petition, if such activities need development permit from the Panchayat. The fourth respondent is free to forward this order to the local Panchayat for appropriate decision and action, if so advised.”
Taking into consideration the stand taken by the 1st respondent District Collector in Ext.P5 communication, I am of the view that the interim order could be made absolute and the writ petition could be closed. Therefore, making the interim order dated 18.12.2020 absolute the writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE cks APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 23623 OF 2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONORABLE COURT DATED 3.10.2016 IN WPC NO 31937/2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATE 20.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF KERALA LAND UTILIZATION
ORDER
