IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 36299 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VIVEKANANDAN, S/O. DHARMANDI, AGED 56 YEARS, KARADATHODI HOUSE, OOTTARA, VADAVANNUR VILLAGE, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (R.D.O.), PALAKKAD. 3. BHASKARAN, S/O. KESAVAN, KIZHAKKEPPURA, VILAYANNUR P.O., VILAYANCHATHANNUR, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (R.D.O.), PALAKKAD. 4. SANTHAKUMARAN, S/O. DHARMANDI, KARADATHODI HOUSE, OOTTARA, VADAVANNUR VILLAGE, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND FOR R.4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 36299/2007. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS. EXT.P2 COMPLAINT DT. 17-5-2006. EXT.P3 REPORT DT. 7-6-2006. EXT.P4 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 15020/2006 DST. 19-9-2007. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 17-11-2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS. ------------------------------------- EXT.R4(A) REPRESENTATION DT. 17-5-2006. EXT.R4(B) REPRESENTATION DT. 20-5-2006. EXT.R4(C) ORDER DT. 25-5-2006. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 36299 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext. P5 order whereby the petitioner was directed to restore the paddy field possessed by him in Vadavannur village to its old state and to cultivate the land with paddy in the coming season. The said direction was to be complied with within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner's contention is that the order has been passed at the instance of the 4th respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner in collusion with the 3rd respondent, who is the R.D.O. The petitioner would further submit that the land has not been cultivated with paddy for years together and the petitioner has only cultivated ginger in the land in question and he has not attempted to convert the land. The petitioner therefore challenges Ext. P5 order on the above grounds. 2. When it was pointed out to the petitioner that Kerala Land Utilisation Order provides for an appeal against the orders like Ext. P5, the petitioner would point out that the same was passed pursuant to a judgment of this Court in which the District Collector was directed to pass an order and not the RDO. Whatever that be, I feel that if the petitioner is given an opportunity to file an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner, it would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petitioner, if so chooses, shall file an appeal against Ext. P5 order before the Land Revenue Commissioner, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon on merits condoning the delay in filing the same, expeditiously. If the petitioner moves a stay petition, the same shall also be considered and orders passed within one week from the date of receipt of the said application. In order to enable the petitioner to avail of the W.P.C. No. 36299/2007 -: 2 :- above remedies, further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P5 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not alter the nature of the land. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/