IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31834 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.NO.121, MAKER CHAMBERS III, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. 2. ADANI LANDSCAPERS PRIVATE LTD., ADANI HOUSE, SHRIMALI SOCIETY, MITHAKALI SIX ROAD, NAVARANGAPURA, AHAMMEDABAD-380 009, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. 3. AALOKA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, 402, YASHICA APARTMENT, 256, DIXIT ROAD, VILEPARLE (EAST), MUMBAI-400 057, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, GOVT. OF KERALA, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686 661. 4. KERALA KARSHAKA SANGHOM, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE COMMITTEE, C.A.SMARAKA MANDIRAM, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 562. 5. KERALA STATE KARSHAKA THOZHILALI UNION, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE COMMITTEE, C.A.SMARAKA MANDIRAM, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 562. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31834 OF 2010(D) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Grievance of the petitioners is against Ext.P5, an appellate order passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling Ext.P2 order passed by the 3rd respondent exercising his powers under the Kerala Land Utilization oder It is stated that aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioners have filed Ext.P6 revision under Clause 14 of the Land Utilization Order and that the said revision is pending before the first respondent. 2. Although, several contentions have been raised in this writ petition about the invalidity of Ext.P5, having regard to the pendency of Ext.P6 statutory revision filed before the first respondent, it is not necessary for this court to examine those contentions. In that view, without expressing anything on the merits, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 with notice to the petitioners and as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. /09 :2 :