IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 16017 of 2002(F) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KASSIM, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED,THANNATHU PARAMBIL,PUTHENCHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA. 5. PUTHENCHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHENCHIRA. 6. A.A.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, ARIPURATH HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA. 7. C.S.IKKORUKUTTY, CHEROTTI VEEDU, VADAKKUMMURI. 8. KUNJU MOHAMMED, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, PUTHENCHIRA, TRICHUR DISTRIT. ADV. SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R7 SRI.P.NARAYANAN KUTTY FOR R5 SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S FOR R5 SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE FOR R6 G.P. SHRI.M.R.SABU THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.16017/02. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE SALE DEED. P2. -DO- P3. COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DTD.15.4.02. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R2 DTD.25.5.02. P5. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.25.5.02. P6. COPY OF THE LICENCE DTD.18.8.00. P7. COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE R5 DTD.15.5.02. P8. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.28.5.03. P9. COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DTD.21.3.03. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R6A. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.27.6.95. B. COPY OF THE STATEMENT REGARDING CLAIM FOR FERTILIZER SUBSIDY. C. COPY OF THE PETITION NIL. D. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.22.3.02 TO R6.C. E. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.18.6.02 BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE RDO. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 16017 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order whereby the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) had interdicted the land involved in Ext.P4 belonging to the petitioner's brother, from being filled up and being put to use for constructing buildings thereon. After issuing Ext.P4 order, on the same day, Ext.P5 notice has been issued by the RDO directing the petitioner to appear before him for a hearing in respect of the alleged violations of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The petitioner filed this original petition challenging those proceedings and obtained an interim order permitting the petitioner to complete the constructions at his own risk. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the land was purchased by the petitioner's brother as per Exts.P1 and P2, from which it is clear that the petitioner's brother purchased the property as a dry land although the documents say that the same was a filled up paddy land. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is not applicable to the property o.p.16017/02 2 in question. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. Relevant portion of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, reads thus: “6. Land cultivated with any food crop not to be cultivated with any other food crop.- (1) No holder of any land, which has been under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately before the commencement of this Order, shall convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” Going by the above provision for the purpose of Kerala Land Utilisation Order, what is relevant is whether the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately before the commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The Kerala Land Utilisation Order was promulgated on 4.7.1967. Exts.P1 and P2 documetns are of the years 1997 and 1998. Therefore, they are not sufficient to prove as to whether the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period of three years prior to 4.7.1967. Going by Exts.P1 and P2 it is clear that the land was originally a paddy land which was filled up. Therefore, for the o.p.16017/02 3 purpose of these proceedings, the RDO has to decide whether the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately before 4.7.1967. Before the RDO could pass final orders in the matter, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the proceedings and obtained interim orders. I am of opinion that the RDO has to continue proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 and take it to its logical conclusion in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Accordingly, this original petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent-RDO to complete the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 and take it to its logical conclusion after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.16017/02 4 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================ O.P.No. 16017 of 2002-F ================ J U D G M E N T 26th November, 2008 o.p.16017/02 5