IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22514 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.ROY.C.J., S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, CHIRAYANKANDATHI, PARK HOUSE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE, PIN-560 095. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED SMT.REENA MATHEW (THEVALAKKATTU) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 3. TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK, ALUVA. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.22514 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of large extents of land. Prior to purchase of the land, the predecessors-in-interest had filed applications for permission to convert the land. The petitioner now submits that in spite of reports having been filed by the lower authorities in respect of the same, those applications have not culminated in a decision. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs; “a) call for the records relating to Exhibits P1 to P5 and examine the same. b) Declare that the inaction on the part of the 2nd Respondent to consider and dispose off the applications for conversion of land of the Petitioner covered by Exhibit P1 & P2 which has been referred to in Exhibit P3 & P4 is highly illegal, unjust and against the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and the Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act. c) issue a writ of mandamus, such other writs, orders or direction commanding the 2nd Respondent to consider and dispose off the applications for conversion of land of the Petitioner covered by Exhibit P1 and P2 which has been referred to in Exhibits P3 & P4 on merit after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner within a reasonable time which may be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the difficulty in considering the applications was that those applications were filed under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and subsequently the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2 came into force, as a result of which, there was considerable confusion as to under what provisions, the applications have to be considered. He now submits that Ext.P5 can be directed to be disposed of by the 2nd respondent. 3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge