IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37851 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAHEENA ELAYIDATH, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMOOD, RASEENA MANZIL, MUTHIYANGA (POST), PATHAYA KUNNU, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.T.P.SAJID RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTAM VILLAGE, THALASSERY TALUK. 2. THAHASILDAR, THALASSERY TALUK, THALASSERY. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 37851 OF 2007 F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the co-owner of the land covered by Ext. P1 title deed. It is stated that Ext. P3 stop memo was issued by the 1st respondent restraining the petitioner from developing the land. It is the contention of the petitioner that the land was never a paddy field or used for growing food crops in which case alone the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is applicable. On receipt of Ext. P3 petitioner has submitted Ext. P4 representation before the 3rd respondent informing him of the illegality in the stop memo that was issued by the 1st respondent. Thereafter, she has filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P3. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the land in respect of which the stop memo has been issued is one to which the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is inapplicable. Since the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is the 3rd respondent before whom the petitioner has also filed Ext. P4 W.P.(C) No. 37851 OF 2007 -2- application, on receipt of Ext. P3 stop memo, I am not inclined to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner on its merits. The 3rd respondent, being the statutory authority should at least on the first occasion decide the correctness or otherwise of Ext. P3. In view of this, I dispose of this writ petition itself directing that if Ext. P4 representation dated 31.10.2007 filed by the petitioner has been received by the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-