IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21237 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SAITHALAVI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.KOYUNNI, PUTHANVALAPPIL HOUSE, PALLAM P.O., DESAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE (NCA) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 003. 4. TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, VADAKKANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR DIST., PIN-680 582. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21237/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: True copy of the judgment in WP(C) No.4808/11 dt 16.2.11. EXT.P2: True copy of the letter dt 6.7.11 of the 2nd respondent. EXT.P3: True copy of the judgment reported in 2011(1) KHC page 291 para 44 and 45. EXT.P4: True copy of the basic tax receipt dt 6.6.06. EXT.P5: True copy of the notice dt 11.11.2010 issued by the District Collector. EXT.P6: True copy of the objection filed by the petitioner dt 1.12.2010. EXT.P7: True copy of the letter from the Local Arts Club Secretary dt 27.11.2010. EXT.P8: True copy of the order dt 24.1.11 of the 3rd respondent. EXT.P9: True copy of the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent dated 11.2.2011. EXT.P9(a): True copy of the stay petition filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent dated 11.2.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21237 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner owns 61 cents of land in Sy.No.350/2 of Cheruthuruthy Village. 2. On the allegation that the land was converted in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, proceedings were initiated, which resulted in Ext.P8 order of the District Collector. Aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, petitioner filed Ext.P9 revision before the 1st respondent. 3. After the filing of the revision, petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.4808/11. In the writ petition, petitioner had placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kaipadath Property Development Co. (Pvt) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011(1) KHC 291). Considering the submissions made, by Ext.P1 judgment, the writ petition was disposed of directing disposal of the revision in the light of the judgment referred to above. It was also directed that until a decision is taken in the revision, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 order shall WPC No. 21237/11 :2 : remain suspended. 4. Despite the direction in the judgment, without issuing any notice to the petitioner for hearing and without considering the effect of the judgment as directed by this Court, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 order rejecting the revision. Ext.P2 order dated 6/7/11 reads thus:- “I am to invite your attention to the reference cited and to inform you that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and wet land Act, stands to conserve the paddy land wet land and to restrict the conservation or reclamation thereof, inorder to promote growth in the Agricultural Sector and to sustain the ecological system in the State of Kerala. In the circumstances, the revision petition does not deserve any consideration and hence rejected”. 5. Evidently, this order reflects total non application of mind and has been passed ignoring the directions in Ext.P1 judgment in WP(C) No.4808/11. For that reason itself, the order cannot be sustained and therefore is quashed. 6. 1st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P9 revision with notice to the parties and adverting to the principles laid down by this Court in Kaipadath Property Development Co. (Pvt) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011(1) KHC 291). This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 3 months of production WPC No. 21237/11 :3 : of a copy of this judgment and in the meanwhile, coercive action pursuant to Ext.P8 will stand stayed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp