IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33553 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUSTHAFA LAKKAL, S/O. ALIMOHAMMED HAJEE, AGED 47, CHANAPPATTIYIL HOUSE, P.O. PERUVALLOOR, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT SAUDI ARABIA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, C.P.A. KUNHIPPA, S/O. CHAKKIPARAMBAN ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, AGED 52 YEAR BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA SMT.A.LOWSY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.33553 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner states that he is in possession of ten cents of land at Kodotty town. It would appear that in the revenue records the land was classified as Nilam. Ext.P3 application was made by the petitioner seeking reclassification of the land as garden land, relying on the nature of the land and the developments in its vicinity. It is stated that the same was rejected by Ext.P5 order. 2. According to the petitioner, as he was out of India he could not challenge Ext.P5 in time. However, he also states that only later he came to know that there was a report, Ext.P4 in his favour, which he obtained under the Rights to Information Act. Producing Ext.P4 now the petitioner challenges Ext.P5 contending that Ext.P5 has been passed ignoring Ext.P4 and also without hearing him. WP(c).No.33553/08 /2/ 3. True, going by the date of Ext.P5, there is delay but the fact remains that, according to the petitioner he was outside the country. Yet another aspect of the matter is that Ext.P4 report is in his favour and Ext.P5 does not show a consideration of Ext.P4. For these reasons I feel that the petitioner is entitled to have the matter reconsidered. Accordingly Ext.P5 will stand quashed and the first respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application in the light of Ext.P4 report made by the 2nd respondent and pass orders thereon with notice to the petitioner. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent who shall pass orders as above, within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.33553/08 /2/