IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16272 of 2008(K)
1. ANILKUMAR.V., MANAGER, OXFORD CENTRAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VILLAGE OFFICER, KARAVALLOOR,
... Respondent
2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM.
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
4. MOHANAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI,
5. ASHOKKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.ARUN RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :19/06/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.16272 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the manager of a school affiliated to the
Central Board of Secondary Education. There are about 1200
students studying in the petitioner’s school. There was some
dispute between the school and the respondents 4 and 5 in
respect of the southern boundary of the school. According to the
petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 have been trying to create
obstruction to the functioning of the school for reasons best
known to them. He further alleges that the 4th respondent is a
Policeman attached to the Special Branch of Police and at his
instance, the 5th respondent, the brother of the 4th respondent, is
creating nuisance in the school compound to force the students
to leave the school. In the above circumstances, the petitioner
started construction of a compound wall to the school.
Respondents 4 and 5 obstructed the same. The petitioner filed a
suit before the District Court, Kollam, and obtained a decree of
permanent prohibitory injunction restraining respondents 4 and 5
w.p.c.16272/08 2
and their men from creating any obstruction for the construction
of the compound wall. The petitioner alleges that thereafter,
respondents 4 and 5 filed a complaint before the 1st respondent
alleging that the compound wall is constructed in a paddy land
and pursuant to the said complaint, the 1st respondent issued
Ext.P4 stop memo which is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in
which he would submit that the construction is in a paddy land
and the construction would obstruct free flow of water through a
canal passing through the properties of the petitioner,
respondents 4 ad 5, and others, which would result in flooding in
the adjacent paddy fields. The learned Government Pleader would
submit that considerable portion of the land is paddy land and
the petitioner has not obtained any permission under the Kerala
Land Utilization Order for conversion of the land and that is why,
Ext.P4 order has been issued. In answer to the above
contentions, the petitioner would submit that as evidenced by
Ext.P5 report of the Village Officer, Karavalur, the petitioner has
already applied for conversion of the land and Ext.P5 report of
the Village Officer would support the petitioner’s case.
w.p.c.16272/08 3
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. The petitioner does not dispute that there is a canal
going through the petitioner’s property. If that be so, the
petitioner cannot obstruct free flow of water through that canal.
As far as Ext.P4 is concerned, after having issued a stop memo,
the concerned RDO has a duty to complete the proceedings in
accordance with the Land Utilization Order expeditiously.
5. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ
petition with the following directions:
The jurisdictional RDO shall pass final orders pursuant to
Ext.P4 along with the application stated to have been submitted
by the petitioner under the Kerala Land Utilization Order as
evidenced by Ext.P5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner as well as respondents 4 and 5. In the meanwhile,
the petitioner may continue construction of the compound wall at
his rick in such a way that such construction would not in any
way obstruct free flow of water through the canal admittedly
passing through the properties of the petitioner and others. The
w.p.c.16272/08 4
1st respondent shall see that the flow of water is not obstructed in
any manner. The petitioner may continue construction of the
compound wall at his risk. It would be liable to be demolished if
the order to be passed by the RDO is against him. However, that
itself is subject to the right of the petitioner to challenge such
orders if adverse to him and seek interim relief thereof.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge