IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 19296 of 2007(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VALSAMMA SOMAN, INDU KAILAS, VAZHAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. MR.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, MR.S.MANU. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-2. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM OFFICE OF THE R.D.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19296/2007-V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1820/1976 OF CHANGANACHERRY SUB REGISTRY DATED 29/07/1976. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 14/03/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11/06/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/06/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 14/06/2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/06/2002. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05/12/2004 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 21/06/2007 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.19296 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The impugned Ext.P6 is a decision issued under the Land Conservancy Act. The petitioner was given prior notice. She showed cause also by filing reply. Obviously therefore, the statutory order should reflect consideration of the contentions. This is all the more important because if the decision is adverse to the petitioner, she will be entitled to statutory remedies. The impugned Ext.P6 is a standard form order cyclostyled and made available by the department where entries are made and issued. This Court had repeatedly cautioned the statutory authorities from issuing such orders at the expense of the state exchequer since such orders are not sustainable and it would be mere waste of public fund to make available such orders. Without expressing anything further on merits, the impugned Ext.P6 is set aside and the appropriate respondent is directed to take up the matter afresh, consider the same on merits, after providing WPC.19296/07 2 further opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and issue a fresh decision in accordance with law. All issues on merits are left open. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.23/03.