IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7095 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SIVANARAYANAN, S/O.MADHAVAN AGED 59 YEARS, PALLIKANDATH HOUSE, KADUTHIRUTHY KINASSERI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE (P) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO.7151/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NOs. 7095 & 7151 OF 2008 ======================== Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T In these cases, Ext.P1 applications were made by the petitioners invoking the power of the 2nd respondent under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. However, the applications are declined to be considered by the 2nd respondent in view of Ext.P2, a direction issued by the 1st respondent intimating that in view of the pendency of a bill, the applications made under the Land Utilization Order shall not be considered. 2. In my view, so long as the land utilization order stands as such without being modified, applications made by the petitioners are liable to be considered by the 2nd respondent, being the notified authority. In view of this, the writ petitions are disposed of directing that the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P1 in these cases irrespective of the issuance of Ext.P2. This shall be done as WPC 7095 & 7151/08 :2 : expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp