IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 W.P(C).No. 26965 of 2008(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- NARAYANAN,S/O.SANKUNNI, AGED 38 YEARS,RESIDING AT ORAVANKATTIL HOUSE, CHUNANGAD P.O., AMBALAPPARA,OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM. 2. SHAHUL HAMEED,S/O.LATE MARAKKAR, PALAMKULATHINKAL,CHUNANGAD AMSOM DESOM, CHUNANGAD (POST), OTTAPPALAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R2 SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN FOR R2 SMT.NISHA BOSE FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 26965/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 17.4.2008. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 20.05.2008 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DT 9.6.2008 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT 15.6.2008. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO ONE SAMITHI MEMBER BY THE SUB INSPECTOR DT 22.8.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.219/2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM DT 1.7.2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT 6.8.2008. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 1125/2008 IN OS 219/2008 DT 6.8.2008. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 18.8.2008. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (G.1456/08) DT 19.8.2008 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE SHOWING THE PROPERTIES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PORTION OF 'PADA SHEKHARAM' 2ND RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT FILED BY ADV.COMMISSIONER IN IA 1126/08 IN OS 219/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM. EXT.R2(b): PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PADDY CULTIVATION IN THE PADASEKHARAM ADJACENT TOT HE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 26965 OF 2008 (I) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10, an order passed by the 1st respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner and certain others have filed Ext.P1 before the 1st respondent alleging that the 2nd respondent has acted in violation of the provisions contained under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. According to the petitioner, Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 supports their case. However, it would appear that during the pendency of Ext.P1, 2nd respondent filed OS 219/2008 before the Munsiff Court, Ottappalam seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendants or their men from tresspassing into the plaint schedule property or causing obstruction to the food crops therein. A copy of the plaint is Ext.P6. Taking note of the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P10 order dated 19/8/2008 stating that action on Ext.P1 can be taken only after the disposal of the suit. It is challenging Ext.P10 the writ petition is filed. WPC 26965/08 :2 : 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of Ext.P1 complaint is totally within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent as the issue raised is violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. Therefore, he submits that OS 219/2008, the suit referred to in Ext.P8 filed by the 2nd respondent seeking injunction against the defendants therein is totally irrelevant. 4. On the other hand, the counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that Ext.P10 is a valid order. According to him, though not for the reason stated in Ext.P10, he is entitled to sustain the said order, on the ground that none of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order is attracted in the present case. It is his contention that if at all the petitioners are aggrieved, the remedy lies under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. 5. I heard the counsel on both sides. 6. In my view, all that this Court need be concerned about is the validity of Ext.P10. In Ext.P10, the 1st respondent has stated that orders on Ext.P1 can be passed only on the disposal of OS 219/2008 referred to above. The question is whether the WPC 26965/08 :3 : pendency of the aforesaid suit should stand in the way of considering Ext.P1. As already stated, in the suit, the relief sought is an injunction restraining the defendants therein from tresspassing into the plaint schedule property, causing destruction to the crops and also against altering the nature of the land. None of these prayers can have any impact on the allegations made in Ext.P1 and therefore the suit could not stand in the way of the 1st respondent considering Ext.P1 on merits. 7. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P10 and direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1, with notice to the 2nd respondent. It is clarified that I have not dealt with any other contentions raised by either of the parties and it is entirely for the 1st respondent to deal with those contentions and render his findings. 8. Orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp