IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25908 of 2010(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. K.I.PAULOSE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. IYPE, KAVIKUNNEL HOUSE, VALAKAM VILLAGE, KUNNAIKKAL KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. 2. JACKSON MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.E.M.CHACKO, ERUMBAYIL HOUSE, POTHANICAD, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 671, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, E.M.CHACKO, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 71, RESIDING AT ERUMBAYIL HOUSE, POTHANICAD, KOTHAMANGALAM, PINCODE-686 671. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. 3. TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ...2/- WP(C).No. 25908 of 2010(K) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF PETITIONERS' PROPERTIES. EXT.P2 : COPY OF REPORT DATED 24-11-2007 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 17-02-2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO. 1219/2010-B. EXT.P4 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 30-03-2010 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS. EXT.P5 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 7-4-2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WA NO. 2754/2009. EXT.P6 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19-04-2010 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.25908 OF 2010(K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T First petitioner and his wife are the owners of 120 cents of property comprised in Sy. No.845/2 of Vallukjunnam Village purchased as per sale deed No.4831/2007. Second petitioner and his wife also owns 1 acre of land comprised in Sy.No.845/2 of Vallurkunna Village Purchased by them as per sale deed No.1562/2007. 2. According to the petitioners they wanted to develop the land and therefore made an application to the 2nd respondent, to permit them to develop the land by raising the land for the purpose of carrying out construction. Orders were not passed and therefore they approached this court by filing WP(c).No. 1219/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing that orders be passed on the application made by the petitioners, in the light of the judgment in Jayakrishnan V. District Collector & Ors.(2008(4) KHC 514). 3. Accordingly, the matter was considered and Ext.P4 order was issued. In this order although reference has been made to the reports obtained by the RDO indicating that the land is no longer a paddy field and that it is a fully planted garden land, on the WPC.No.25908 /2010 :2 : ground that if the permission is granted that will affect the ecology, the permission was rejected. Subsequently, petitioner filed Ext.P6 application requesting to recall Ext.P4 order. Orders were not passed on Ext.P6 and therefore the writ petition is field. 4. Even if it is true that the land in question is shown as a paddy field in the revenue records, Ext.P1 photographs of the land shows that he land is a garden land with very old coconut trees. In addition to this Ext.P2 report submitted by the Tahsildar also shows that the land in question is not a paddy land. Therefore, the view taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer in Ext.P4 is against the ground realities and too unrealistic, to be suspended in a proceeding before this court. 5. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application made by the petitioners in the light of the principles laid down by this court in the judgment referred to above and as reflected in Ext.P5 judgment and also duly adverting to Ext.P2 report. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.25908 /2010 :3 :