IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8618 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. JAMAL, S/O.KHADER, MUCHETH HOUSE, VENGOLA VILLAGE. 2. BABU, S/O. NARAYANAN, ILLIKKATT HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA P.O., EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, PIN 682 026. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (REVENUE DEPT.) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUNNATHUNADU. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOLA VILLAGE, VENGOLA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 8618 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 13, 2008 JUDGMENT The 1st petitioner claims to be the owner of the land covered by Ext.P1 registered sale deed. Subsequently he had made an application to the 2nd respondent seeking permission under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. On the application so made, the 2nd respondent sought a report of the 3rd respondent. Thereupon the 4th respondent made Ext.P3 report to the 3rd respondent which the 3rd respondent, in turn, forwarded to the 2nd respondent under cover of Ext.P4. While matters stood thus, it would appear that the 1st respondent has issued a direction not to consider applications such as the one made by the petitioner in view of a proposal for introducing a legislation modifying the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. It is on account of this, the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application made by the petitioner. 2. It is true that in Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent has informed WP(C) 8618/08 Page numbers the 1st petitioner that he has been directed not to consider applications made under the Land Utilisation Order. So long as the Land Utilisation Order remains in the statute book, any person is entitled to make application seeking permission as provided for in the said order and the 2nd respondent, being the notified authority, is bound to consider such applications. Therefore a direction such as the one mentioned in Ext.P5 cannot prevent the 2nd respondent from exercising his statutory powers. 3. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that irrespective of the direction mentioned in Ex.P5, the 2nd respondent shall consider the application stated to have been made by the 1st petitioner in the light of Exts.P3 and P4. Orders thereon shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-