IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18570 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SABU, AGED 42, S/O.ALIAS KURUMOLATH HOUSE, (THAZHATHEMOLATH) NORTH MAZHUVANNOOR KARA, MAZHUVANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2. BINU, W/O.SABU, KURUMOLATH HOUSE, AIRAPURAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. JOINT SECRETARY AGRICULTURE (NCA) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.O.GEORGE, KIZHAKKUPARAYIL HOUSE, NORTH MAZHUVANNOOR, AIRAPURAM. 5. M.M.SIDDIQUE, S/O.MUHAMMED, MANAKKAKKUDY HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM P.O. 6. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).18570/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P14 order passed by the Government dismissing the Revision filed by the petitioner under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue who in turn had affirmed the order passed by the RDO, this writ petition has been filed. On an earlier occasion, Government had dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner, as per Ext.P10 order. One of the grounds taken up by the petitioner challenging Ext.P10, was that the Joint Secretary in the Agriculture Department had passed Ext.P10 but he was in fact heard by the Secretary to Government. This Court accepted the contention and by Ext.P11 judgment, after setting aside Ext.P10 order, the 6th respondent therein, namely the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, was directed to pass orders. 2. There is nothing ambiguous or unclear in the directions in Ext.P11 but for some reason, Government W.P.(C).18570/09 2 persisted in not understanding it correctly. Accordingly, in the second round, the Joint Secretary, who was already the author of Ext.P10, that had been set aside in Ext.P11 judgment, proceeded to hear the petitioner and then passed an order, dismissing the petitioner's Revision. This order, Ext.P14, has been challenged in the writ petition. Other grounds have also been taken up in the writ petition challenging Ext.P14. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 4. There are two reasons which persuade me to interfere with Ext.P14. This Court had in Ext.P11 judgment, directed the 6th respondent therein, namely the Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department, to pass orders after hearing the petitioner. If that be so, it was the duty of the Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, to hear the petitioner and pass orders. The Joint Secretary could not have exercised the jurisdiction. W.P.(C).18570/09 3 5. Secondly, revision itself was against the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue and propriety demanded that the Secretary to Government should consider the Revision against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. 6. In the result, Ext.P14 is set aside. It is made clear that the 6th respondent herein namely the Secretary, Department of Agriculture shall hear the petitioner and pass fresh orders, as already directed in Ext.P11 judgment, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Status quo prevailing on the date of Ext.P11 shall continue to be in force till fresh orders are passed by the 6th respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs