IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1382 of 2011(W) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ AJITH V.P., PANIKKASSERIL HOUSE, ARAKULAM, KODUNGALLUR, TRICHUR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL LINE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TRICHUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 1382 of 2011 W ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of 13 cents of land situated in survey No.291/1 of Iringalakuda village in which he intends to construct a commercial building. Seeking permission as contemplated under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, he made an application to the second respondent. In that application, the second respondent passed Ext.P2 conditional order dated 25-06-2007. Among the various conditions imposed, one was that the order will be valid only for six months and the other was that the conversion should be commenced only on receipt of licence of the local body for constructing the building. When the local body took the stand that permit will be granted only after conversion is completed, objecting to the aforesaid two conditions, petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. That appeal was disposed of by Ext.P3 order, directing the RDO to reconsider the W.P.(C) No.382/2011 : 2 : matter, giving sufficient time to the petitioner to complete the construction and to delete the condition that conversion can be commenced only after obtaining orders of the local body. Though the first respondent's order is dated 17-07-2010, the RDO has not passed the revised order. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation to the RDO seeking expeditious orders. But even to that representation, there has not been any response. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Now that the first respondent has passed Ext.P3 appellate order, directing the second respondent to pass revised orders, as directed therein, it is imperative on the part of the second respondent to pass such revised orders. Having regard to the complaint of the petitioner that such orders have not been passed so far in spite of Ext.P4 representation, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition, the second respondent shall pass appropriate revised orders as directed W.P.(C) No.382/2011 : 3 : by the first respondent in Ext.P3. This, the second respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge