IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2269 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ CHACKO SKARIA, S/O. CHACKO, KATTURKUDIYIL HOUSE, KADAVOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAVOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM. 4. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. CHACKO JOHN, KATTARKUDIYIL HOUSE, KADAVOOR P.O.,KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2269/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.L524318/K.DIS DT.26.7.07 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.9.07. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.9.07. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L554450/07 DT.27.12.07 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14.1.08. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =================== W.P.(C) NO.2269 OF 2008 T =========================== Dated this the 8 th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is an order passed by the 3 rd respondent, under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Against Ext.P1, petitioner had filed Ext.P2 appeal to the 4 th respondent along with Ext.P3 application for stay. It is submitted by the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal, the survey number of the property mentioned in Ext.P3 was corrected and Ext.P4 revised order was issued. It is stated by the petitioner that the property mentioned therein is belonging to his wife and son and that they were not put on notice before Ext.P4 was issued. It is also stated that despite the pendency of the appeal, even at that stage, Ext.P5 notice has been issued by the 1 st respondent requiring the petitioner to remove the pineapple cultivation from the land mentioned in Ext.P4. It is in these WPC 2269/08 :2 : circumstances, this writ petition was filed and by order dated 18/1/08, this court had granted stay as sought for. 2. As noticed above, all these developments have been taken place when Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner was pending. But then, a disposal of Ext.P2 will not solve the problem in as much as, Ext.P2 concerns only the land mentioned in Ext.P1 order. Now that Ext.P4 order covers a different survey number and that too belonging to the petitioner's wife and son, it is necessary for the persons affected by Ext.P4 to file appeal against that order as well. In view of this, I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the persons concerned to file appeal against Ext.P4 within three weeks from today, in which case, the 4 th respondent shall consider that appeal also along with Ext.P2 and dispose of the same on merits after issuing notice to the appellants. It is directed that if appeal is so filed as directed as above, Ext.P2 and the appeal to be filed shall be dealt with by the 4 th respondent at any rate within one WPC 2269/08 :3 : month thereafter. In the meantime, I direct that all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed in the appeals as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp