IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28621 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.SASAN, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 60, RESIDING AT SCOT VILLA, THAIPARAMBIL VAZHICHERRY JUNCTION, CULLAN ROAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.JOHN SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the instructions issued by the petitioner dated 2.7.2007. Ext.P1(a) True copy of the readable copy Ext.P2. True copy of the show cause notice dated 209.11.2005 of the Government. Ext.P3. True copy of the Order G.O.(Rt).No.1284/07/RD dated 21.3.2007 of the Government. Ext.P4. True copy of the Review Petition filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Secretary Revenue (D) Dept. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram dt.24.4.2007. Ext.P5. True copy of the Order G.O(Rt).No.3213/07/RD dated 27.7.2007 of the Government. // true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.28621 OF 2007 (G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a retired Revenue Divisional Officer. He is challenging Exts.P3 and P5 orders issued reducing his pension as provided in Rule 59(b) Part III KSR. 2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that while working at Palakkad, petitioner issued Ext.P1 requiring the Village Officer, Erimayoor and Tahsildar, Alathur to inspect the land mentioned therein and issue a possession certificate, indicating the present nature of the land. Ext.P1 was issued in 2000. Long thereafter in 2005, Ext.P2 show cause notice was issued proposing action against him under Rule 59(b) Part III KSR. Finally, by Ext.P3 order passed by the 3rd respondent, petitioner's pension was reduced by R.300/- per month in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 59 (b) Part-III KSR. Petitioner sought review of Ext.P3 by filing Ext.P4. That was also rejected by Ext.P4. 3. A reading of Ext.P3 itself shows that even according to the 3rd respondent, even though the land had been even lying fallow for a long time, he should not have issued a specific WPC.No.28621/07 :2 : direction converting the classification of the land as dry land. It is stated that there is violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Act. It is on this basis proceedings have been initiated and reduced the pension. 4. The controversy starts from Ext.P1 direction issued by the petitioner. In this order after stating that the land has been lying fallow for several years petitioner only directed the Village Officer and Tahsildar to issue a certificate indicating the condition of the land as it was available then. It does not say that the Village Officer or Tahsildar should have certified the land as a dry land. Therefore, since Ext.P1 only directs issuance of a certificate showing the existing condition of the land, it cannot be said that by issuing the said direction petitioner has violated the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order in any manner. If that be so, I do not find any justification for the 3rd respondent have ordered reduction of the petitioner's pension by Rs.300/- per month, exercising his power under Rule 59(b) Part-III KSR. For that reason, Ext.P4 order rejecting the review of Ext.P3 also cannot be sustained. WPC.No.28621/07 :3 : Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 and directing that the respondent shall pay the pension so far withheld from the petitioner and also continues to pay full pension to the Petitioner. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/