IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21038 of 2008(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: (PARTY IN PERSON) ------------------------------------------------- CHANDRAN, MOOKKOTH HOUSE, P.O.POYILOOR (NORTH), KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN - 670 693. BY ADV. SRI. CHANDRAN (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 4. HAMEED, NARIKOLIL VEEDU, KUMAMKODU P.O., NADAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN FOR R4 SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.21038 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in filling up paddy lands against the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 Stop Memo has been issued in the matter. But the same has not been implemented by the respondents 1 and 3 is the grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit along with which he has produced Ext.R4(b) judgment passed by me in respect of the same property wherein, I had directed the 1st respondent to pass final orders pursuant to application filed by the 4th respondent under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. In that judgment I had also directed that till orders are passed by the RDO, the 4th respondent shall be permitted to continue construction as his own risk and that W.P(C)No.21038 of 2008 - 2 - if the petitioner does not succeed in the proceedings before the RDO, he would be liable to demolish the building. Admittedly, no orders have been passed by the RDO as directed. That being so, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition, at this juncture. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek his remedies as and when the RDO passes final orders. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs