IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38734 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MEENAKSHI, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O. PAZHANIYAPPAN MUTHALI, MELPADAM KALAM, OLASSERY, P.O.KODUMBA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KODUMBA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 001. 4. SHRI. UDAYAKUMAR, S/O. KITTA D., GURUPOURNAMI, POOTHANKAD, OLASSERY, KODUMBA, PALAKKAD-678 551. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRAMOHAN, J. --------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 38734 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 stop memo issued by the 3rd respondent directing her to stop conversion of her paddy fields into brick kilns. According to the petitioner her paddy fields are lying at four different levels and in seven fragments. The petitioner is only trying to level the land and to convert all the paddy fields into a single large field. The petitioner contends that conversion of her fields is with the intention of engaging in agricultural operations employing machinery, for the purpose of which it is necessary to convert the paddy fields into a single large field. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P4 revision petition which is pending before the first respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has no authority or power to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P2. The WP (C) No. 38734 of 2010 2 petitioner also contends that though Ext.P4 is pending, no orders are passed thereon till date. 3. Ext.P4 is dated 27.12.2010. We are only on 31.12.2010. Therefore it cannot be said that there has been any delay in considering and disposing of Ext.P4. However, it is pointed out that the soil that is sold from the paddy fields are to be used for the manufacturing of bricks which activity is only a seasonal activity and therefore the delay in the disposal of the appeal is causing financial loss to the petitioner. It is not possible for me to ascertain the exact position with regard to the petitioner's land, sitting in the summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since Ext. P4 revision is pending before the first respondent it is sufficient that the said authority is directed to consider and dispose of the revision expeditiously. 4. In view of the above this writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 revision submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as WP (C) No. 38734 of 2010 3 possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with a copy of this judgement before the first respondent for prompt compliance. K.SURENDRAMOHAN, JUDGE. rkc