IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37970 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT. MALIYEKKAL UMMUSALMA W/O. CHERAPPARAMBIL MOHAMMEDMON, P.O.TALAKKAD, THEKKAN KUTTOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-01. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-01. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR. 4. M.P.FATHIMA, W/O. MOIDEENKUTTTY MANNAKKATTUPARAMBIL, P.O.THEKKAN KUTTOOR TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -04. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON 01/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 37970/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the Ist day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he purchased a plot of land having an extent of 23.5 cents of land in R.S.No.296/2 of Talakkadu Village in Tirur Taluk. He made an application for conversion as provided under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and Ext.P2 is the report that was made by the Addl. Tahsildar. However, the application was rejected and the appeal filed by him was also rejected by the Land Revenue Commissioner as per Ext.P4 order. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings that the writ petition has been filed. 2. The main contention that is raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that neither the original or the appellate authority have considered Ext.P2 report made by he Tahsildar. However a reading of Ext.P4, the appellate order passed by the 2nd respondent itself belies that contention. /2/ On facts I am satisfied that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is entitled to permission for conversion under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. If that be so, it will be open to the petitioner to pursue her claims under the said Act, in which event the application will be considered untrammeled by the impugned orders. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi /2/