IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 2815 of 2007 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24184/2007 Dated 08/08/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------- 1. JOHN, S/O.MANI, MUTTAPPALLIL HOUSE, KOZHA KARA, KURAVILANGADU VILLAGE. 2. TOMY, S/O.MANI, MUTTAPPALLIL HOUSE, KOZHA KARA, KURUVILANGADU VILLAGE. 3. SHAJI JOSE, S/O.JOSEPH, ALAPPATTUMEDAYIL HOUSE, KURUVILANGADU KARA AND VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (NCA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA. 3. JOSEPH THOMAS, PANAKUZHACKAL HOUSE, KURUVILANGADU. 4. RAHUL GEORGE MATTOM, S/O.GEORGE JOHN, MATTATHILKULATHINANIYIL, KURIYANADU KARA, MONIPPALLY VILLAGE. 5. GEORGE, S/O.JOHN, MATTATHILKULATHINANIYIL, KURIYANADU KAR, MONIPPALLY VILLAGE. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No.2815 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, This Writ Appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 24184 of 2007 dated 8th August, 2007. In the writ petition, the petitioners had called in question the order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity and convenience, referred to as 'Order of 1967'). The order, that was questioned by the petitioners was the order passed by the State Government rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the competent authority dated 22.6.1996. 2. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this court nearly after eleven years from the date of the original order, namely, Ext.P2 order. 3. The brief facts are: Petitioners claim that they are the joint owners in possession of the paddy field in Sy.No.728/2A (Re.Sy. No.211/6 in Block No.8) of Kuravilangadu Village. In the writ petition, it was contended that the competent authority could not have passed any order in favour of the third respondent under the provisions of the Order of 1967. It is also stated that being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the competent authority that they filed a revision petition before the State Government as provided under Clause 14 of the Order of 1967 and that revision petition ought not to have been rejected by the State Government only on the ground of maintainability, instead of deciding the case on merits. WA.2815/2007. 2 4. Admittedly, the third respondent had approached the competent authority under the provisions of the Order of 1967. The competent authority has passed an order dated 22.6.1996 in favour of the third respondent for utilising the land for non-agricultural purposes. That order ought to have been questioned by the petitioners before the appellate authority as provided under Clause 11 of the Order of 1967. The only explanation that was offered by the petitioners in the writ petition was that they came to know about the order so passed only when they filed a civil suit and in that civil suit a written statement was filed bringing to the notice of the court that an order had been passed in favour of the third respondent sometime in the year 1996. 5. The question that falls for our consideration is, whether the petitioners could have questioned the order passed under the Order of 1967 sometime in the year 1996 before the State Government under Clause 14 of the Order of 1967? 6. Clause 14 of the Order of 1967 empowers the State Government to call for the records of the acts and proceedings of the Collector or the Board of Revenue in any case under this Order and thereafter pass such orders thereon as they think fit. That only means that at the instance of an aggrieved person, no revision is maintainable under the Land Utilisation Order before the State Government. It is only the State Government, if it is of the opinion that the order passed by the Collector or the Board of Revenue is contrary to the provisions of the Land Utilisation Order, they may suo motu call for the records and examine the same and pass such order as they think fit. 7. Under the Land Utilisation Order, if any person is aggrieved by the orders passed by the competent authority, necessarily he has to file an appropriate appeal as provided under Clause 11 of the Order of 1967. In the instant case, it is stated that the petitioners were not aware of the impugned order passed by the competent authority under the Order of 1967 and therefore they could not have filed any WA.2815/2007. 3 appeal within the time granted. 8. In our view, if for any reason the petitioners were not aware of the order passed by the competent authority, they could have filed an appeal and sought for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the appeal. If for any reason their appeal or the application is rejected, they could have approached this court with the appropriate writ petition. Instead of doing so, the petitioners had approached the revisional authority, namely, the State Government, against the order passed by the competent authority. The revision petition so filed by the petitioners was in fact not maintainable before the State Government. Keeping all these aspects in view and also taking into consideration the fact that nearly after eleven years from the date of the order passed by the competent authority the petitioners have approached this court, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which would call for our interference. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb/DK.