IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 13854 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- C.K. VARGHESE, CHOORAL VETTATHU VEEDU VENMONY, ERATHU MURI, VENMONY VILLAGE CHENGANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. R.D.O., CHENGANOOR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, CHENGANOOR. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VENMONY. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO.13854/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 787/1992. P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION. P3 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE APPEAL. P7 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13854 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, by Ext.P1 settlement deed of 11.5.1992, among various items of property that were well settled in his favour, one item is a plot having 18 cents, a portion of which was already reclaimed. He submitted that in order to reclaim the remaining 4 cents of the plot, he made Ext.P2 application, which shows that the purpose mentioned was to construct a residential building. 2. On the application, Exts.P3 and P4 reports were submitted by the Tahsildar and the Village Officer respectively. Both these reports were in favour of the Petitioner. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext.P5 order not only rejecting Ext.P2 application, but also ordering that the remaining portion of 18 cents which is already reclaimed should be restored to its old position. 3. Petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal and that was also dismissed by Ext.P7 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner. It is challenging Exts.P5 and P7, this writ petition is filed. W.P.(C).No. 13854 OF 2008 2 4. The reason mentioned in Exts.P5 and P7 for declining permission for reclamation of 4 cents of land is that the petitioner had other garden land available and therefore it was not necessary for him to reclaim the site in question. Having regard to this fact and also since this issue is to be now dealt with in accordance with the provisions of 28 of 2008. I do not think that it is necessary to up set this findings contained in Exts.P5 and P7 orders. 5. However, I cannot up hold that part of Ext.P5, which directs the petitioner to restore the remaining portion of 18 cents of land to its old position. According to the petitioner, even prior to 1963 the land was already a reclaimed land. Therefore, it is very doubtful whether the Land Utilisation order has any applicability to the land in question. Even otherwise the proceedings originated on Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner seeking permission for conversion of 4 cents. It is on that application an adverse order and that too, without putting the petitioner on notice, was passed. Such an order is clearly illegal. Therefore, Ext.P5 to the extent, which requires the petitioner to restore remaining 14 cents of 18 cents plot as paddy W.P.(C).No. 13854 OF 2008 3 field, is unsustainable and Ext.P7 to the extend Ext.P5 is confirmed also is unsustainable. 6. This writ petition is therefore disposed of quashing Exts.P5 and P7 to the extend mentioned above. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be given liberty to make an application under Act 28/2008. It is made clear that if such an application is made, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb