IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 30769 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHANMUGHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, KALAVAPADAM, MOOLAMKODE, KIZHAKKENCHERRY-II VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. SMT.RUGMINI, W/O.PRABHAKARAN, THRIPPANNUR, KIZHAKKENCHERRY-II VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 30769/2007. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 25-9-2007. TRUE COPY P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 30769 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P2 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, wherein on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was directed to remove the rubber seedlings from his paddy field, which were planted violating the Kerala Land Utilization Order. There was a further direction that if he fails to remove the rubber seedlings, it will be removed by the Village Officer, Kizhakkencherry with the assistance of police, the cost for which will be recovered from the respondent. The petitioner's contention is that there is no paddy cultivation and the 2nd respondent's property is also planted with rubber. Although no such specific contention has been taken in the writ petition, the petitioner would now take a contention that Ext. P2 order is not an order under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, but should be construed as an order under Section 133 of the Crl. P.C. The petitioner also raises a contention that he was not heard. 2. I have heard the parties and considered the contentions in detail. 3. As far as the contention of the petitioner that he was not heard is concerned, from Ext. P2, what is discerned is quite to the contrary. The petitioner initially appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer and filed an objection. But, on 21-7-2007, 17-8- 2007 and 15-9-2007, the respondent failed to appear even after receiving summons. The order was passed only on 25-9-2007. The petitioner does not now dispute the fact that the petitioner did not appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer on those days. That being so, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, there is W.P.C. No. 30769/07 -: 2 :- no merit in the contention that the petitioner was not heard and therefore Ext. P2 order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. As far as the other contentions that the petitioner's property was not cultivated with paddy and the 2nd respondent's property is also planted with rubber are concerned, those are questions of fact, which the parties should plead and prove before the Revenue Divisional Officer. From Ext. P2, I do not find that the petitioner has taken such a contention and proved it. Therefore, I do not find any merit in those contentions also. 5. Then comes the new contention of the petitioner unsupported by any pleadings to the effect that Ext. P2 order should be construed as one under Section 133 of the Crl. P.C. Apparently, the petitioner has raised this contention in view of the fact that the complaint of the 2nd respondent was regarding obstruction of a water channel. From Ext. P2, I find that that order has been expressly passed under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. There is a specific finding therein that the petitioner has converted the land without obtaining permission from the appropriate authority as mandated by the Kerala Land Utilization Order. Therefore, I have no reason even to suspect that Ext. P2 is not an order passed under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. The petitioner has sadly failed to prove his case before me. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/