IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34483 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A. RAJAN, S/O. RAMANKUTTY MOOTHAN, RESIDNG AT ARAPPATH, KUNDALASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD -678 641. BY MR.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS.MR.T.C.SURESH MENON MR.JIBU P THOMAS MR.P.S.APPU MR.A.R.NIMOD MR.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LANE REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KONGAD, II VILLAGE, KONGAD, PALAKKAD DIST. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34483 of 2009 - E ---------------------------------------- Dated 1st December, 2009 Judgment The petitioner applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad for permission to convert 1.25 acres of land belonging to him for planting rubber. By Ext.P4 order passed on 26.10.2009, the said application was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 appeal under clause 11 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 before the Land Revenue Commissioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Land Revenue Commissioner to hear and dispose of Ext.P5 appeal expeditiously. 2. Under clause 11 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, an appeal lies from Ext.P4 to the Land Revenue Commissioner. The petitioner had in the application on which Ext.P4 order was passed sought permission to cultivate the land with rubber. The Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the said application mainly on the ground that the land in question is governed by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet W.P.(C) No.34483/2009 2 Land Act, 2008. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 inter alia on the ground that before the said order was passed, he was not put on notice or heard. The petitioner submits that though he was present outside the chambers of the Revenue Divisional Officer, he was not called to attend the hearing, that the hearing was held exparte and that an order was passed thereafter. In my opinion, these are matters which the appellate authority should consider when it takes a decision on Ext.P5. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Land Revenue Commissioner to consider Ext.P5 appeal and take a decision thereon expeditiously and in any event within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Land Revenue Commissioner. Till such time as orders are passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner, the status quo as on today shall be maintained in relation to the lands involved in Ext.P5 appeal. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa