IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8644 of 2009(A) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ A.B. ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O. A.S BAVA, ALLINGAL HOUSE, NAGARIPURAM P.O., PATHIRAIPALA, PALAKKAD 678 642. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.AYSHA RAHMAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 8644 OF 2009 (A) ==================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner of land covered by Ext.P1 title deed, Ext.P2 certificate of purchase and Ext.P3 tax receipt. According to the petitioner, on account of the dumbing of the soil, the nature of the land which is now classified in the revenue records as Nilam has undergone change and the land has become unfit for cultivation of food crops. It is stated that in view of this, he made an application to the 1st respondent to reclassify the said land. Petitioner says that on receipt of the application, the 1st respondent sought a report from the Village Officer and the Village Officer has submitted Ext.P5 report. It is stated that despite having received Ext.P5 report, the 1st respondent has not passed final order on the application made by him for reclassification of the land. It is complaining of delay on the part of the 1st respondent in passing final orders, the writ petition is filed. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, he has made the application and the 1st respondent has received Ext.P5 report WPC 8644/09 :2 : from the Village Office, there is no reason why the matter should be delayed any further. 3. Taking into account the case of the petitioner regarding the pendency of the application for reclassification, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the same and pass orders thereon. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp