IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5746 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BABU JOHN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. JOHN, VAZHIPLAKKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. TAHSILDAR, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. NEDUMKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 8. TOMY AZHAMCHIRA, ACTION COUNCIL CONVENOR, MANTHURUTHY P.O., NEDUMKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GP SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 5746 OF 2008 ----------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exhibit P10 order passed by the 2nd respondent imposing condition for the removal of red earth. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to do so. 2. A reading of Exhibit P10 shows that the first condition was that the petitioner should abide by the conditions imposed by the RDO. The orders passed by the RDO are Exhibits P3 and P4 and even according to the petitioner, he had agreed to abide by these two orders. 3. The second condition is that the removal could only be for the purpose of making a site for the construction of a residential building. It is seen from Exhibits P5 and P6 judgments rendered by this Court granting Police protection and quashing the prohibition order issued by the Panchayat, that the petitioner had represented before this Court that his attempt was to make the site suitable for the construction of a residential building. W.P.(C)No.5746/08 2 This being the factual position, there cannot be any objection on condition No.2 as well. 4. The third condition that is imposed is that the petitioner should abide by the conditions imposed by this Court in Exhibits P5, P6 and P7 and for that again, there cannot be any objection by the petitioner since these have become final. 5. The fourth condition imposed is that the soil removed shall not be used for levelling any paddy field. This condition also cannot be objected to by the petitioner and if he violates, this condition, the same will certainly be in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the objection now raised by the petitioner and hence the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. dsn