IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5795 of 2010(S) PETITIONER: JINSON JOSE, AGED 33, S/O.JOSE, RESIDING AT KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, CHAGAMPUZHA NAGAR, CHAGAMPUZHA P.O., KOCHI-33. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.BINDU SMT.NASEEMA.P.M RESPONDENTS: 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 2. TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAMA, THIRUVANKULAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANKULAM. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, TRIPUNITHURA. 6. NARAYAN KAMMATH, S/O.NARASIMHA KAMMATH, H.NO.XL/777, KOVILVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. 7. GOVIND KAMMATH, S/O.NARASIMHA KAMMATH, H.NO.XL/777, KOVILVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. 8. GOUTHAM GOVIND KAMMATH, S/O.GOVINDAN, H.NO.XL/777, KOVILVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C). 5795 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, Ag. CJ. This writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation, seeking for a direction to Respondents 1 to 5 to enforce the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, and prevent the filling up and illegal conversion of 20 acres of 'Paddy field' comprised in Survey No. 743, 743/2, 746 in Nadama Village, Kanayannur Taluk. 2. Even though this is a Public Interest Litigation, the relief has to be moulded in accordance with law. The condition precedent for issuing a writ of mandamus should precede by a demand. The Revenue Divisional Officer being the appropriate authority, he will see as to whether there is any conversion of land, contrary to the Land Utilization Order and whether it is without permission. But no representation or complaint is said to have been made to that authority. In the absence of the same, no writ of mandamus can be issued. However, this will not stand in the way of the petitioner in making any such complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer who will consider and dispose of the same, after hearing the parties WP(C) 5795/2010 2 concerned. In case the petitioner wishes to file a complaint as aforesaid, he may also enclose a copy of this judgment for information and compliance. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). knc/-