IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17510 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.D.ANTU, S/O.DEVASSY,AGED 49 YEARS, MEIPPAN VEEDU, P.O.PADUVAPURAM,ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683582 BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE SECREATRAIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR - 676 100, MUKUNDAPURAM P.O. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, KORATTY P.O., THRISSUR - 676 010. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 17510/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PETITIONER IN SURVEY NO.220/3 OF KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE. P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/11/2008. P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.29465/2008 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 06/10/2008. P4: COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06/01/2009. P5: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 07/02/2009. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.17510 of 2011-K ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent in relation to petitioner's land having an extent of 0.1012 hectors situated in survey No.220/3 of Kizhakkumuri Village, Mukundapuram Taluk. 2. The petitioner made an application under the provisions of the Kerala Utilisation order for conservation of wet lands in order to set up a poultry farm. When orders were not passed on that application, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.29465/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment rendered on October 2008, with the following directions. “After hearing counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the second respondent is to pass orders on the application, in accordance with the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. This will require an enquiry whether lands are paddy lands or wet land. If the lands are paddy land or wet land, the respondent shall consider the application in accordance with Act 28 of 2008. If the lands are not paddy lands or wet lands, the respondent shall consider the application under the provisions of the Land Utilisation Order. If the competent authority finds that the application is to be considered under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, then the competent authority is bound to conduct an effective enquiry into the details given by the applicant. The provisions of the Land Utilisation Order, which is a subordinate legislation, under the Essential Commodities Act, is meant to be implemented with seriousness. It should not be dealt with casually. It is not only the status of the land in relation to which permission has been sought for, but also the status of the neighbouring properties that is relevant. Possible detrimental effect of conversion of one property forming part of a larger cluster of lands and the attendant ecological factors are to be taken note of by the competent authority. There cannot be a casual approach to an application under the Land Utlisation Order, either for conversion to non agricultural purposes or for permission to use it for purposes other than paddy cultivation. Orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 3. In the purported compliance of the directions in the judgment, Ext.P6 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent on 20.5.2009, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The only reason stated in Ext.P6 order for declining to consider the request of the petitioner, is that as per the order issued by the Principal Secretary to Revenue, Government of Kerala, dtd.17.11.2007 request of the petitioner could not be considered. 5. In my view, in the light of Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, to which the Government is also a party, the application of the petitioner ought to have been considered in compliance of the directions therein. On the face of Ext.P6 it is obvious that the petitioner's application did not receive a consideration as directed by this Court and that for that reason itself Ext.P6 has to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P6, and direct that on production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application made by the petitioner in the light of the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment and other materials available. This shall be done within four weeks thereafter. 7. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC ab JUDGE