IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16162 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ VALSALA AMMA, D/O. MADHAVI AMMA, AGED 51 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT PANAKKATT, KOKKALLUR AMSOM, DESOM, POST KOKKALLUR, BALUSSERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA - WITH ADDRESS FOR SERVICE - CHIEF SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.16162 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P21 notice directing the petitioner to stop the construction going on in her properties on the ground that the land has been filled up in violation of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The petitioner would contend that in view of the inclusion of the duties regarding land utilisation also as part of the duties of a Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the RDO is not competent to pass Ext.P21 notice. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I am of opinion that after having issued Ext.P21 notice, the RDO is bound to pass a final order in the matter as contemplated in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order after considering all the contentions of the petitioner so that the petitioner can take it in appeal as provided in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. W.P.(c)No.16162/08 2 Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent-RDO to pass a final speaking order in the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not pronounced on any of the contentions of the parties in this writ petition and it would be open to the petitioner to raise all her contentions before the 1st respondent at the time of hearing which shall be considered by the 1st respondent in accordance with law. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner that the actual construction is over and only the interior work of the building is in progress, the petitioner may continue the same at her own risk subject to the condition that if she ultimately fails, she would be liable to demolish the building. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.16162/08 3