IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 283 of 2009() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2654/2009 Dated 27/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER NO.1 ---------------------- P.V. VALSARAJ,S/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT SREEVALSAM, THODIKALAM, KANNAVAM, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. MR.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNAVAM VILLAGE, KANNAVAM, KANNUR DIST. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DIST. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, KANNUR DIST. 4. PRIYA JAYARAJ, W/O.JAYARAJ, RESIDING AT KARAPARAMBATH VEEDU, KANNAVAM AMSOM, THODIKALAM DESOM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & P.BHAVADASAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.283 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated 6th February, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J . Contention of the appellant (first petitioner) is that fourth respondent is converting certain properties adjacent to his property violating the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. First petitioner has not approached the Revenue Divisionl Officer, but, it is stated that the second petitioner approached the RDO. An undated petition is produced as Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is a representation given to Village Officer on 17.1.2009. That is a petition filed on the eve of filing the writ petition and there is no evidence to show that it reached the Village Officer. Ext.P3 order of the Village Officer shows that his petition was already considered and the land in question was not cultivated for last 10 years. It is also stated that a building with four rooms is being constructed in the above place and there are civil disputes and pending cases between the petitioners and the fourth respondent. It is also stated that the fourth respondent has given an undertaking not to continue further construction. It refers to an order of RDO dated 27.05.2008. The present appeal is therefore for revival of a matter already disposed of. Therefore, learned single W.A.283/2009 2 Judge did not interfere in the matter. If Ext.P1 petition is received by the RDO and no final orders are passed by the RDO, he shall consider the same taking into account Ext.P3 report of the Village Officer with notice to all concerned according to law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE tks