IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30484 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHIVANANDAN, MOTHER LAND, KARUNILACODU DESAM, VARAKALA VILLAGE, EDAVA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN DAVIS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SRI.SATHEESH KARUNAKARAN, T.C.NO.28/2824, PRAKASH KUNNUMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 30484 of 2009-E ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of parcel of land 28 cents in extent situated in Survey No.1628/1 of Varkala Village. On a complaint filed by the fourth respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. Ext.P1 order was thereupon passed directing the petitioner to restore the land to its original state. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner. By Ext.P2 order passed on 21.1.2009 the said appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has thereupon filed Ext.P3 revision petition before the first respondent under Clause 14 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Along with Ext.P3 the petitioner has also filed an application seeking stay of operation of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Land Revenue Commissioner. It is stated that though the revision petition was filed in February 2009, till date orders have not been passed either on the revision petition or on the application for interim relief. The petitioner submits that as he has invoked a W.P(C) No. 30484 of 2009-E 2 remedy available to him in law, unless the operation of the impugned orders is kept in abeyance the remedy will be rendered illusory. On these grounds he seeks a direction to respondents to dispose of Ext.P3 revision petition expeditiously and to stay the operation of Ext.P1 order till revision petition is disposed of. 2. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that aggrieved by Ext.P1 and P2 orders the petitioner has moved the State Government in revision. Nearly eight months have passed thereafter. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the State Government should consider Ext.P3 revision petition and pass orders thereon expeditiously, after notice to and affording the petitioner and the fourth respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Government to consider Ext.P3 revision petition and pass orders thereon after notice to and affording the petitioner and the fourth respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard, within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of the judgment before the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department or a certified copy is received by the Secretary to W.P(C) No. 30484 of 2009-E 3 Government. The Government shall after orders are passed as directed above, communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner and the fourth respondent expeditiously. Since the petitioner has invoked a remedy available to him in law and if during the pendency of the revision petition, the impugned orders are given effect to, the remedy by way of revision will be rendered illusory and meaningless, I direct that till Ext.P3 revision petition is heard and disposed of and for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order passed on Ext.P3 to the petitioner, the operation of Ext.P1 shall stand stayed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab