IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25196 of 2011(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VISWABHARAN, NEDUMTHARAYIL, ATHINAD, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM - 691 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.J. RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO.25196/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2479/08/2001 DATED 10/07/2008. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A.5901/11 DATED 24/08/2011 OF THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25196 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order issued by the respondent. This communication has been issued alleging that the petitioner was found reclaiming a property to which the Land Utilization Order and Act 28 of 2000 applies and in violation thereof. On this basis, he has been asked to restore the land to its original position and also to file his objections against the said directions. 2. In my view the order itself is contradictory and if the petitioner is to restore the land as directed in Ext.P7, no useful purpose will be served even if the petitioner files the objections as directed. Therefore the direction to restore the land cannot be implemented unless the process of filing the objections and the same is considered by the statutory authority. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition itself with the following directions. W.P.(C) No. 25196 OF 2011 :2 : 3. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the respondent and seek a copy of the report of the Additional Tahsildar which led to Ext.P2 order. If a request in that behalf is made, a copy of the report shall be issued to the petitioner within one week. Once copy of the report is issued as above, it will be open to the petitioner to file his objections against Ext.P2 within two weeks thereafter and once objections are filed, the respondent shall hear the petitioner and decide on the issue. It is ordered that until the aforesaid process is completed, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 will stand stayed. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge