IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32066 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- MATHER PROJECTS(P) LTD., REP.BY MR.SIRAJ MATHER, DIRECTOR, RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32066 OF 2010 (G) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a company which owns an extent of 451.150 extent of land in Block No.37 of various resurvey numbers in Aluva West Village in Aluva Taluk. The District Collector passed Ext.P1 order finding that the land has been converted in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and directed that further action under the Kerala Land Utilization Order shall be taken. Petitioner attempted a review of the said order by filing an application before the District Collector. That application was rejected by Ext.P2 order. 2. Against the District Collector's order, petitioner moved the Land Revenue Commissioner in revision. The Land Revenue Commissioner by Ext.P4 order dated 28/1/2010 rejected the revision. Thus with Exts.P1, P2 and P4, the proceedings under the Land Utilization Order against the petitioner has become final. Now further action is to be taken against the petitioner. 3. At that stage petitioner has filed Ext.P3 representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer requesting that while WPC No. 32066/10 :2 : further action is taken, the judgment of this Court in WA No.2754/09 and other materials shall be considered. 4. In this wit petition, what the petitioner seeks is a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P3 representation. In my view, the prayer sought is misconceived. First of all, the issue of the violation of the provisions of the Land Utilization Order has become final as far as the petitioner is concerned by virtue of Exts.P1, P2 and P4 orders of the District Collector and the Land Revenue Commissioner. These orders are not under challenge also. If that be so, necessary further action based on the findings in the aforesaid orders are to be initiated against the petitioner and the present attempt of the petitioner by filing Ext.P3 representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer is to get the aforesaid orders nullified. In my view, such a procedure is impermissible, and for that reason, the writ petition is to be rejected and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp