IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 OP.No. 18365 of 1999(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ERAYI KUNHIKANNAN, S/O. RAMAN AGED 68 YEARS, PUTHEN VEEDU, P.O. MALOOR VIA., MATTANNUR PIN 670 702. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL (N.C.A.), DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER , LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TELLICHERRY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.18365/1999 ORDER ON CMP. NO.30065/1999 IN OP. NO.18365/1999 DISMISSED 25.07.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TELLICHERRY DT. 15.10.97. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE TRIVANDRUM AND DT. 20.10.98. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 20.5.1999 ISSUED BY ORDER OF GOVERNOR ADDL. SECRETARY TO GOVT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.18365 of 1999-J - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Exts.P1 to P3 are under challenge here. As per the above orders, it has been found that the conversion made by the petitioner of 10 cents of paddy field was unauthorised and there is a direction to remove the cultivations also. 2. Going by Ext.P1, it is evident that he has converted 10 cents of land by planting coconut seedlings and areca seedlings. The proceedings were issued based on complaints made by one Shri P. Kesavan Namboodiri who alleged that because of the conversion, his paddy cultivation is affected. The petitioner's case is that the land is not fit for paddy cultivation and the remaining portions were already cultivated with coconut seedlings, areca seedlings, etc. But finding that the conversion is in violation of the relevant provisions of Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the Revenue Divisional Officer by Ext.P1, directed the petitioner to reconvert the said land. This was confirmed in appeal by Ext.P2. In Ext.P2, it has been found that the land is fit for paddy cultivation. The revisional authority, viz. the Government also found that the land was being used for paddy cultivation. OP 18365/1999 -2- 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land is not fit for cultivation of paddy and therefore there is no point in reconverting the same, because that cultivation is not possible for lack of irrigated water and such other facilities. Of course, I find that the authorities have not considered that fact in detail. But still, since the finding is that the conversion was without getting permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, it cannot be said that the authorities have acted illegally in passing the orders under challenge. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the orders under challenge. If the petitioner still wants to seek permission for reconverting the land, the orders already passed by the authorities will not be a bar for putting up such an application in accordance with law, before the competent authority and to establish that paddy cultivation is not possible in the land in question. With liberty to do so, the original petition is closed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 18365/1999 -3- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.18365 of 1999-J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 25th July, 2008.