IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29603 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MADHAVAN PILLAI, S/O. ANANDAN PILLAI, SREERAGAM HOUSE, THOTTUMUGHAM.P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M. MAHENDRAN, S/O. MAHADEVAN PILLAI, XIX/288-A, MARKET ROAD, ALUVA.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PAROOR. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ELOOR VILLAGE, ELOOR. 4. ELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE), ELOOR. 5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI-682 001. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).29603/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners purchased 76.360 cents and 124.221 cents in different survey numbers in Eloor Village. Properties are lying contiguous. Apparently, the said property is situated in the midst of the industrial zone at Eloor Panchayat. Though it is a low lying area, there has not been any cultivation of food crops for more than 30 years. It is the case of the petitioners that the entire land is an industrial area and it obviously would not be feasible to embark upon cultivation in the said land alone. But desirous of putting the land to profitable use, petitioners decided to construct a godown there. Petitioners are the agents of Asian Paints and at present they maintain their godowns at Kakkanad and Vyttila on a rental basis. In the circumstances, petitioners’ predecessor purchased the said property and filed an application for putting up a construction in the property, as evidenced by Ext.P1. The local authority, W.P.(C).29603/2008 2 the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam, and the Additional Tahsildar considered the application and have, as per Exts.P3, P4 and P2 respectively, reported that a decision has been taken that the land is not fit for agricultural purpose. The issue is now pending before the fifth respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer. Petitioners are aggrieved that a decision is yet to be taken on Ext.P1 application, submitted by the Predecessor for permission for putting up a construction in the said property. Permission is to be granted under the provisions of land Utilization Order. 2. I take note of the fact that the land is situated in an industrial area. In the circumstances, a decision will have to be taken by the fifth respondent taking note of Exts.P2 to P4, without further delay. 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the fifth respondent to consider Ext.P1 application in the light of Exts.P2 to P4 reports, within a period of six W.P.(C).29603/2008 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the copy of the judgment before the fifth respondent. They shall also submit a representation pointing out their acquisition of title from the applicant under Ext.P1. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs