IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25546 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BALAN,S/O.RAMAN,POVATHODY, KILLIMANGALAM.P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. PRABHAVATHI,W/O.BALAN,POOVATHODY, KILLIMANGALAM.P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 001. 3. BIJU MATHEW,VILLAGE OFFICER, KILLIMANGALAM-680 591. 4. KESAVANA,KAYIPULLITHODI VEEDU, KILLIMANGALAM,TALAPPILLI,THRISSUR-680591. 5. BABY,S/O.CHACKO,KUDILILVEEDU, KILLIMANGALAM,TALAPPILLI,THRISSUR-680 591. ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R4 SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R4 MR.DILEEP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25546/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R2. P2 : COPY OF OBJECTION PREFERRED BY R2. P3 : COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER TO THE C.I. OF POLICE. P4 : COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY R2. P5 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS. P6 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF R1. P7 : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R2 UNDER CLAUSE 7(3) OF THE KERALA LAND UTILISATION ORDER DATED 06/08/2010. P8 : COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY R4 & R5 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY. P9 : COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a) : COPY OF REPORT DATED 24/11/2006. R2(b) : COPY OF FORM F NOTICE DESPATCHED ON 01/07/09. R4(a) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/11/2006 OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. R4(b) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 11/05/2009 OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHELAKKARA. R4(c) : COPY OF NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ON 29/10/2009. R4(d) : COPY OF NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY ON 20/04/2010. R4(e) : COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR DATED 03/08/2010. R4(f) : COPY OF PHOTO SHOWING THE PART OF THE PADDY FIELD OF THIS RESPONDENT AND PART OF THE LAND AUTHORISEDLY CONVERTED BY THE PETITIONERS. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.25546 of 2010 (P) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition challenge is against Exts.P4 & P6 orders. 2. Petitioners own 51 cents of land in survey No.176 of Kilimangalam Village in Thrissur District. They planted rubber saplings in the land, and on a complaint made by the party respondents, the 2 nd respondent issued Ext.P1 conditional order to remove the saplings. The petitioners filed their objections. Finally, Ext.P4 order dated 20/02/2009 was passed by the 2 nd respondent confirming Ext.P1. Against Ext.P4, they filed Ext.P5 appeal before the 1 st respondent. The appeal was rejected by Ext.P6 order dated 16/07/2010. It is challenging Exts.P4 & P6, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Contention raised by the petitioners is that the rubber saplings that have been planted does not cause any prejudice to any of the neighbouring farmers or to their farm lands and therefore, Exts.P4 & P6 requiring removal of the rubber plants were WP(C) No.25546/2010 -2- unwarranted. However, the petitioners have no case that the land in respect of which the impugned orders are passed, is a land to which the provisions of the KLU order issued under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, is inapplicable. Once it is accepted that the land is one to which the provisions of the KLU order is applicable, any plantation other than that of a food corp is permissible only after obtaining orders in terms of Clause 7 of the KLU order. It is not the case of the petitioners that before planting rubber saplings, they had obtained any such order. If that be so, Ext.P4 and Ext.P6, the appellate order, cannot be said to be illegal. Necessarily therefore, the only option is to confirm the impugned orders and to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg