IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8530 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MARIYATH, W/O SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, THASHATHAYIL HOUSE, KUNNUMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE [P] DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008 ALONG WITH WP(C) 8535, 8536 & 8538/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 8530, 8535, 8536 & 8538 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 13, 2008 JUDGMENT In these writ petitions, the petitioners submit that they have submitted Ext.P1 application to the 2nd respondent invoking his power under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and seeking permission for conversion of the land mentioned therein. However, these applications are declined to be considered on the ground that by Ext.P2, the 1st respondent has directed them not to entertain the applications in view of the proposal for introducing a legislation modifying the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. 2. In my view, so far as the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is in the statute book, the 2nd respondent being the notified authority, is bound to consider applications in the nature of Ext.P1, invoking his power under the Land Utilisation Order. Therefore, there is no justification in acting upon Ext.P2 communication and declining to consider Ext.P1. WP(C) 8530, 8535, 8536 & 8538 of 2008 Page numbers In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of directing that the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P1 applications made by the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-