IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26413 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.T. RAJESH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.P.T. RARICHAN, RESIDING AT 1/5047, OPP. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NADAKAVU, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BNY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE, POST CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, POST CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020. 3. THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020. 4. P.T. RUGMAVATHI, W/O. HARSHAN, RESIDING AT EASWARAMANGALAM HOUSE, MAQNGOTTUVAYAL ROAD, KOTTOOLI, KOZHIKODE - 673 016. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.26413/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPAINT DATED NIL EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBITP-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.18484/2011 DATED 08/07/2011 EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO.26413 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner and the 4th respondent are co owners of certain properties in RS NO.5/2 and 5/3 of Kottooli Amsom of Kozhikode Taluk. On an earlier occasion, they approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 18484/11 complaining that the 2nd respondent has initiated proceedings under Act 28 of 2008 and that the said proceedings are without jurisdiction. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing that it will be open to the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent and that thereupon the 2nd respondent will decide the maintainability of the complaint before him as a preliminary issue. According to the petitioner, the matter has not been decided as directed in Ext.P3 judgment. 2. It is stated that while so, the 3rd respondent has made a report to the 2nd respondent requesting for the inclusion of the land as a paddy land for the purpose of Act 28 of 2008. According to the petitioner, thereupon he submitted Ext.P4 representation to the 2nd respondent requesting that before the report is accepted, WPC No. 26413/11 :2 : they should also be heard in the matter. It is immediately thereafter that this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 before orders are passed on the report made by the 3rd respondent. 3. In my view, even if there is such a report by the 3rd respondent as contended by the petitioner, that report will also be another piece of material which is to be considered by the 2nd respondent in the course of the issue to be adjudicated pursuant to the directions in Ext.P3. If the report is to be relied against the petitioners, obviously they are entitled to seek disclosure of the contents of the report and they will also be entitled to be heard in the matter. Clarifying the position as above and directing that necessary action in that behalf will be made by the 2nd respondent on production of a copy of this judgment, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp