IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 14286 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PONNACHI, W/O.KOMBAN, CHEMABNKARRIL HOUSE, KAZHANI DESOM, KAVASSERY VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKADU. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAVASSERY-II, VILLAGE OFFICE, KAVASSERY P.O., ALATHUR TALUK. 3. GOPALAN, S/O.CHINNAN, CHEMBANKADU, KAZHANI, KAVASSERY-II VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKADU. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.14286/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE RECLAMATION AND CULTIVATION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 8.2.2008. P4:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 27.3.2008 FILED BY THE SON OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT THROUGH HER SON DTD.. 30.9.08. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3.11.2008. P7:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 25.2.2009. P8:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 25.2.2009 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.14286 of 2009-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010. Judgment Petitioner complains that the third respondent is not obeying Ext.P6 order of the first respondent RDO. That is a direction issued in terms of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order which falls under the purview of the Essential Commodities Act. Though the third respondent does not appear in spite of notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner states today that after the institution of this writ petition, the third respondent has removed some saplings but has, however, not restored the land in terms of Ext.P6 order. If the RDO has issued an order in the form of Ext.P6, it is the bounden duty of that officer and his subordinate officers, including the second respondent, to have it enforced in terms of law. Enforcement of orders passed under the statutory powers is part of the guarantee of rule WPC14286/09 -: 2 :- of law. Under such circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to ensure that Exts.P3 and P6 are enforced in accordance with law, within a period of three months from now. The writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/0506