IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26600 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. R.THANKACHAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 48 YEARS, THOTTATHUSSERRIL, THANNEERMUKKAM SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. K.B.BALAMBIKA, W/O. P.R.PRASAD, PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, THANNEERMUKKAM SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LR),ALAPPUZHA. 4. GEOLOGIST, OFFICER OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE THAHASILDAR, CHERTHALA. 6. VILLAGE OFFICER, THANNEERMUKKAM, SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 7. MUHAMMA PEPRUMTHUTHU PADASHEKHARA SAMITHI, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, REGHUNATH, AMBIKA SADANAM, MANNANCHERY (PO), ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.26600 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners challenge Ext.P9 order, whereby permission granted to the petitioners for removing soil from the petitioners' property has been cancelled. The petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.33334/06, seeking a direction to dispose of an application submitted by the petitioners, which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment, by which the Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioners. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P4 order was passed granting the petitioners permission to remove sand from the property so as to make it suitable for cultivation. That permission has now been cancelled by Ext.P9 order. The petitioners' contention is that since Ext.P9 does not specifically refer to any provision of law, it cannot be considered as an order passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. 2. I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners themselves filed an application, W.P.(c)No.26600/08 2 which was directed to be disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment. Therefore, they know under what provision of law they have filed that application, which can only be under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. In any event, a reading of Exts.P4 and P9 would make it abundantly clear that the same are passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. If that be so, the petitioners' remedy lies in filing an appeal against Ext.P9 order as provided under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Without prejudice to such right, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.26600/08 3