IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 OP.No. 14397 of 2000(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MOHAN DAS, S/O. CHAMIYAR, PALAKKODE, CHENGANNIYOOR, MATHOOR, ALATHOOR TALUK, PALAKKADU DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.N.SUKUMARAN, MR.S.SHYAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKADU. 3. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. SMT. YASODA, W/O. LATE SRI. PAZHANIYANDI, CHENGANNIYOOR, MATHOOR.I, ALATHOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, MATHOOR I VILLAGE, MATHOOR, ALATHOOR TALUK. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO.14397/2000-L: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 23248/2000 IN O.P. NO. 14397/2000-L CLOSED 06/10/2009. SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/11/1997. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P.1. BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 20/11/1997. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.3. DT. 06/03/98. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.3. DT. 26/05/99. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER DT. 05/07/99. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHOOR TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 07/12/99. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 14397 of 2000 ================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a paddy field. By Ext.P1 notice, he was directed to showcasue why proceedings should not be initiated against him under the Kerala Land Utilization Order for planting coconut trees in the bunds of his paddy field. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 reply. He also filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and obtained Ext.P3 stay order. Subsequently, the Commissioner for Land Revenue dismissed the appeal as premature on the ground that Ext.P1 is only a notice under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. But strangely, without any further proceedings, on the ground that the appeal has been dismissed, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued Ext.P5 notice directing the petitioner to cultivate paddy in the paddy field of the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 and P5 orders in this original petition. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he has not converted his paddy land for any other cultivation and what he has done, as is usually done by others also, was only to plant coconut trees in the bunds of the paddy field, which does not amount to conversion of the paddy field, which only is prohibited under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. 2 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. However, the learned Government Pleader would argue in support of the impugned orders. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. From Ext.P1 notice itself it is abundantly clear that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has converted his paddy field with any other crop. The only allegation in Ext.P1 notice is that he has planted coconut trees in the bund of his paddy field. The Government Pleader was not able to bring to my attention any provision of law which prohibits planting of coconut trees in the bunds of the paddy lands. That being so, the entire proceedings are unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders, Ext.P1 and P5, are quashed. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 14397 of 2000-L ================== J U D G M E N T 6th October, 2009