IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12763 of 2008(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- ANPASHAKAN S/O. GOPA LAN AGED 40 YEARS, NADAKKAVU, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (P0 DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.12764 OF 2008 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NOS. 12763, 12764, 12765, 12766, 12767, 12768, 12769, 12770, 12771, 12772, 12773 & 12774 OF 2008. -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th April, 2008 JUDGMENT The complaint in these Writ Petitions, inter alia, is as follows: Petitioners are absolute owners of paddy fields. They intend to convert the paddy fields under the Land Utilisation Order and they have made Ext.P1 applications. But, the applications have not been considered on the basis of Ext.P2 communication. By Ext.P2, on the basis that a legislation is on the anvil in regard to the matter, a direction is issued not to accept and decide the applications seeking permission under the Land Utilisation Order. A decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C). No.11357/08 is placed on record. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that several Judgments have been rendered. It is also pointed out that no Appeal was carried against the same. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing that the application WPC 12763/08 & CONN. CASES 2 submitted by the petitioner therein shall be considered on merits. I find no reason why I should take a different course. In such circumstances, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, to consider and take a decision on Ext.P1 applications in these cases on merits. In the teeth of the statutory provisions governing the field, I feel that the communication in question is liable to be ignored in law. Ordered accordingly. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.