IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2272 of 2008() ------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------- 1. SMT. BINDU SURESH, HARI SREE VEEDU THOTTUVA MURI, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE,ADOOR TALUK. 2. SRI.SURESH KUMAR,HARI SREE VEEDU THOTTUVA MURI, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE,ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SRI. N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR VALIYAVEEDU, CHERUKKUNNAM MURI, ANAYADI P.O., PALLICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2272 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The challenge is directed against Annexure A3 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the apprehension is that reckoning the same as an order passed under Chapter X B of Cr.P.C, further action may be taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions makes a categoric submission that no order has been passed under Chapter X B and there is no intention whatsoever to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner under Chapter X B of the Cr.P.C. The learned Prosecutor points out that Annexure A3 order clearly reveals that action has been taken under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation order. 3. I am in these circumstances satisfied that no directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or need be issued in as much as no criminal proceedings are contemplated against the petitioner admittedly. Crl.M.C. No. 2272 OF 2008 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his right to challenge Annexure A3 order reckoning the same as an order passed in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order may not be fettered. 5. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say, the disposal of this petition will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to challenge Annexure A3 order which is purportedly passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order in accordance with law. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 2272 OF 2008 3 Crl.M.C. No. 2272 OF 2008 4