IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35673 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K. MUHAMMED LIYAQUATH, S/O. CHEKKU HAJI (LATE), KOORIMANNI KIZHAKKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KADAMODE.P.O, PANTHALLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). 35720/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s.35673/2008 & 35720/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Common contentions are taken up in these two writ petitions. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. I will refer to the facts in Writ Petition No.35673/2008 in the first instance and the same shall cover the other writ petition also. 2. Petitioner is one of the co-owners of a property having an extent of 11.20 Ares in R.S.No.56/8 and Block No.46 of Pandallur Village, Ernad Taluk, Malappuram. It seems that the property originally belonged to his father and it further seems that even during the life time of the petitioner’s father, property was planted with cash crops like rubber, areacanut, banana, tapioca etc. According to the petitioner, though the property was originally described as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records, there has been no cultivation of the aforementioned crop for long number W.P.(C).35673 & 35720/2008 2 of years. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 notice issued by the respondent requiring the petitioner to cultivate the property with paddy and not to leave the same fallow. Petitioner submitted a detailed objection, Ext.P2, but this again was met with Ext.P3 which required the petitioner to remove the rubber plants planted in the property within 15 days, threatening to initiate prosecution proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, on failure. Same has been challenged in the writ petition. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 4. Ext.P3 does not reflect a reference to Ext.P2 objection and if the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the land, though originally was a paddy land, had been converted for cultivation with crops long number of years ago, then it certainly would be an aspect which has to be taken note of by the RDO under the Land Utilization Order. W.P.(C).35673 & 35720/2008 3 5. In my view, since Ext.P3 does not reflect Ext.P2 objection, it can only be treated as a show cause notice to the petitioner and shall not be enforceable at this stage. 6. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P3 in the writ petitions as a show cause notice to the petitioners. It is open to the petitioners to file fresh objections in line with Ext.P2. An enquiry shall be conducted by the respondent on the aspects mentioned above and a reasoned order shall be passed either in acceptance of the petitioners' objections or in repudiation thereof, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, since Ext.P3 is directed to be treated as show cause notice, same shall not be enforceable at this stage. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs