IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2908 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E. KRISHNA DAS, S/O. P. DEVADAS, AGED 38 YEARS, SRI KRISHNA KRIPA, PANNICODE.P.O, KUNNISSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2908 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner made an application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order seeking conversion of the land mentioned in the application. When that was declined to be accepted or considered, he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.13356/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing that the application shall be accepted and considered. However, the application was eventually rejected by Ext.P3 on the ground that when the application was being processed, Kerala Conversion of Paddy Land and Wet Land Bill 2007 came into force. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner filed a contempt case as COC No.1252/2008. That was dismissed by Ext.P4 holding that there was no contempt and that it will be open to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P3. It is accordingly, this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3. 3. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that only because of the introduction of the new Act, the application was declined to be WP(C) No.2908/2009 -2- considered. This Court has held in the judgment in Jayakrishnan v. District Collector (2008(4) KHC 514) that if an application is received, depending upon the nature of the land, the same should be considered either under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order or under Act 28 of 2008. Ext.P1 application has not been considered on that basis. For that reason, Ext.P3 is liable to be set aside and I do so. 4. The respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 in the light of the judgment of this Court referred to above, and fresh orders on Ext.P1 shall be passed. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg