IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6172 of 2010(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.P. MUSTHAFA, S/O. MAMMU, AGED 75 YEARS, MURUNGOLI PUTHIYA PURAYIL HOUSE, NHERLERI (P.O.), PADINHARATHARA, WAYANAD DT. PIN-673 575. BY ADV. MR.SARVOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY WAYANAD DISTRICT 2. TAHSILDAR, VYTHIRI TALUK, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PADINHARATHARA VILLAGE OFFICE, PADINHARATHARA P.O, WAYANAD DIST. PIN – 673 575. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6172 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is in possession of land comprising 0.960 hectare in Resurvey No.242/12 of Padinharathara village in Wayanad District. He wanted to construct a commercial building in the plot in question. By Exhibit P1, a permit was issued to him by the Revenue Divisional Officer for removal of soil. The petitioner started the work as per Exhibit P1. Later by Exhibit P7, the petitioner is informed that the permit is cancelled for certain reasons. 2. Mainly it is contended that the conditions imposed in Exhibit P1 have not been complied with by the petitioner. It appears that there were complaints in the matter also based on which the Tahsildar and the Village Officer had furnished reports. It is contended that the order is issued without considering various aspects. It is further pointed out that the cancellation is under a misconception. The petitioner points out that the W.P.(C) No.6172/2010 2 reasons for cancellation cannot be supported. 3. Evidently, the petitioner was having permit as per Exhibit P1. What is involved is an allegation regarding violation of the conditions in executing the work. Since the cancellation is on the basis of alleged violation, it is upto the petitioner to file an objection before the very same authority inviting his attention to the contentions raised in this writ petition and seek to recall Exhibit P7 order if there are valid grounds for the same. If the petitioner files a representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer along with copy of the judgment, the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed after verifying all aspects within a period of one month. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp