IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 9739 of 2006(H) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K. RAJAN, S/O. ROHINI, KOVVAL, NEAR S.N.POLYTECHNIC, HOSDURG, KASARGODE. 2. K. KUMARAN, S/O. ROHINI, KOVVAL, NEAR S.N. POLYTECHNIC, HOSDURG, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAUPRAM. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, KASARGODE, R.D.O'S OFFICE, P.O. KANHANGAD, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, HOSDURG, KASARGODE DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.9739/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 30.3.05 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 26.4.05 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH FORM E NOTICE. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DT. 6.6.05 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 15.2.06 OF THE SIT RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.9739 of 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Orders passed by the authorities, Exts.P2 and P4, under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, are under challenge. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the second respondent and Ext.P4 is the order passed by the appellate authority. Under Ext.P2 there is no finding at all as to whether the land was cultivated with paddy. That apart there is no advertance at all to the contentions taken by the petitioner. What is stated in Ext.P2 is only that “your objections are not justified”. There is no other reference at all to the objections taken by the petitioner. As far as the appellate order also is concerned, it is seen that it is a laconic order without reference to the contentions taken by the petitioner. Be that as it may, unless there is violation of the provisions of the Land Utilisation Order, by converting the land which was cultivated with paddy for the preceding period of three years, the second respondent is not justified in passing the W.P(C) No.9739 of 2006 -:2:- impugned order. Therefore, the impugned orders are quashed without prejudice to the liberty to the second respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass a proper order, if required. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------- W.P(C).No.9739 of 2006 ----------------------------------- JUDGMENT 24th September, 2008