IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 6270 of 2004(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PANDARAKANDY MAMMAD KOYA, S/O. MOHAMMED, KARUMARAKADU, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. P.K. MOHAMMED, S/O. KADARKUTTY KARIMPANAKKAL HOUSE, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN FOR R4 SRI.B.S.SURESH (CHIRAKKARA)COMMR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.8.2002 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28.6.2003 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO.6270 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT W.P.C. was filed challenging the order of the RDO by which he permitted the fourth respondent to mine clay from his paddy field for construction of fish pond. Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that fourth respondent is no more. Commission appointed by this Court reported that mining was done in accordance with the orders of the RDO. It is not known whether fish farm was ever started by the deceased during his life or whether after death his legal heirs are continuing. In any case I do not think there is any scope for considering the correctness of the order of the RDO because beneficiary who obtained the order is no more. If petitioner has continued grievance about the present condition or of any activity being taken up in the land of the fourth respondent, it is for the petitioner to approach the RDO for appropriate relief under the Land Utilisation Order and Land Conservancy Act. W.P. is closed as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk