IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 23821 of 2002(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. CHOORIKADAN RATNAKARAN, S/O.PATATHIL RAMAN NAIR, PUTHUKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, VIA NEELESWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANHANGAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 23821/2002 ORDER ON CMP. NO.40484/2002 IN OP. NO.23821/2002 DISMISSED 27.06.2008 SD/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE AGRL. FIELD OFFICER DT. 5.2.1997. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.R-7258/97(1) DT. 25.4.1998. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.D.DIS. 13414/98/LRA DT. 23.1.1999. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 16.2.99. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT NO.G.O.(RT) NO.499/02/AD DT. 25.5.02. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss KURIAN JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------------- O.P. No. 23821 OF 2002 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibits P2, P3 and P5 orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Revenue Commissioner and the Secretary (Agriculture Department) respectively in the matter of implementation of Kerala Land Utilization Order. The issue pertains to the year 1997. 2. According to the petitioner, at the time he acquired the property, it was already a reclaimed land and there were coconut trees also. He has also produced certificate of the Agricultural Officer dated 05.02.1997. According to the petitioner, there is no paddy cultivation in the neighbourhood and the development in the disputed property will not affect the cultivation of any paddy field around. At any rate, it is submitted that at the relevant time, there were 23 coconut plants aged 4 years which would conclusively show that the land was without any paddy cultivation for the proceeding several years. 3. It is seen from the revisional order itself that the District Collector was granted liberty to permit the petitioner to retain O.P. No. 23821/02 2 certain portion of the land for his residential purpose. According to the petitioner, that itself would show that the land by nature is a dry land and it has not affected anybody else. In view of the above factual situation, the impugned orders are quashed, however, with liberty to the Revenue Divisional Officer to initiate proceedings afresh, in case the nature and lie of the land referred to in the writ petition would in any way affect the paddy cultivation of any of the neighbouring lands. This writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. smp O.P. No. 23821/02 3 KURIAN JOSEPH, J. O.P. No. 23821 OF 2002 J U D G M E N T 27.06.2008