IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 111 of 2011(G) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC. 38067/2010 DATED 02/02/2011 ................. REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. MERINA & MERINA VICTOR, W/O.VICTOR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT NANDANAM, NO.15, MYTHRI NAGAR, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION, ADOOR. 2. REGINA @ REGINA JOJI, W/O.JOJI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VALIYATHARA HOUSE, CHEMMANATHUKARA, VAIKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. SERINA @ SERINA AJITH, W/O.AJITH, AGED 34 YEARS, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, ETTUMANOOR POST, PIN-686631, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND IST PETITIONER MERINA VICTOR. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682030. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI-01. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-11. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAMA VILLAGE, THRIPUNITHURA-682301. BY ADV. SRI. PAUL K. VARGHEESE GOVT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P. No.111 of 2011 in W.P (C) No.38067 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th March, 2011 O R D E R Review of the order dated 2nd February, 2011 vacating the interim order enabling the petitioner to start development works in the property in question at their risk is sought for. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Ext.P14 stop memo was issued mainly alleging violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and that in view of Exts. P8, P8 (a), P8 (b), P9 and P10 and the judgment of this Court in Reliance Industries Vs. Commissioner of Land Revenue (2007 (2) KLT 850], the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order are inapplicable to the land in question. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner should be permitted to continue the development works. 3. However, in addition to the reasons stated in the order dated 2.2.2011 for vacating the interim order, it also needs to be noticed that by virtue of the order R.P. No.111 of 2011 in W.P (C) No.38067 of 2010 2 enabling the petitioners to continue the development works, the writ petition itself virtually stands allowed. This course of action is impermissible at the interlocutory stage and therefore I do not find any reason to allow the review petition. The review petition will stand dismissed. 4. Respondents will file their counter affidavit within three weeks and the writ petition will stand posted thereafter. 5. While the interim order dated 2.2.2011 will continue in force, it is directed that penal proceedings on the alleged violation of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order shall not be initiated against the petitioners in the writ petition for anything they have done under the order dated 22.12.2010. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge