IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11527 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- G.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 33 YEARS, 12/431(1), JAYAMANI NIVAS, KOMBANKUSHI, KARALA STREET, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (P) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NOS.11576, 11586 & 11617/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NOs. 11527, 11576, 11586, 11617 OF 2008 ================================ Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T In these cases, Ext.P1 applications were made by the petitioners invoking the power of the 2nd respondent under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. However, the applications are declined to be considered by the 2nd respondent in view of Ext.P2, a direction issued by the 1st respondent intimating that in view of the pendency of a bill, the applications made under the Land Utilization Order shall not be considered. 2. In my view, so long as the land utilization order stands as such without being modified, applications made by the petitioners are liable to be considered by the 2nd respondent, being the notified authority. In view of this, the writ petitions are disposed of directing that the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P1 in these cases WPC 11527, 11576, 11586, 11617/08 :2 : irrespective of the issuance of Ext.P2. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp