IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 13051 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. P.P. JOHN, S/O. PAILY, AFED 41 YEARS, PAREKKATTIL HOUSE, VADAYAMPADI, AYKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, NEAR PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. M.V. JOSEPH, S.O. VARGHESE, AGED 53 YEARS, MUNDIYATH HOUSE, VADAYAMPADI P.O., NEAR PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KEARLA, REP. BY SECRETARY, (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, NEAR KOLENCHERRY. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.13051 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners claim to be owners of 61 Ares of land vide Ext.P1. According to them the property is not fit for paddy cultivation. Petitioners submitted Ext.P3 application under the Land Utilisation Order. Ext.P4 is the report allegedly given by the third respondent. By Ext.P5 the second respondent has intimated the petitioners that no decision can be taken because of the prohibition from the Government of Kerala. Petitioner relies on Ext.P6 judgment. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader also on behalf of the respondents. 3. It is not in dispute that the question at hand is covered by Ext.P6 judgment and several other judgments. I feel that in such circumstances the petitioners also cannot be denied the benefit of Ext.P6 judgment. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take up Ext.P3 application and take a decision thereon in accordance with law on the merits of the matter. In view of the statutory provisions contained in the Land Utilisation Order, Ext.P5 is only to be ignored. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb