High Court Kerala High Court

M.P.Paul vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 27 May, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.P.Paul vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 27 May, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14434 of 2009(Y)


1. M.P.PAUL, AGED 44, S/O.PAULOSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SASIKALA, AGED 36, W/O PAUL,

                        Vs



1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :27/05/2009

 O R D E R
                      V.GIRI, J
                    -------------------
                W.P.(C).14434/2009
                    --------------------
       Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009

                    JUDGMENT

Petitioners who claim to be in joint possession

of 2 acres 12.25 cents of property in survey

Nos.388, 389, 390/1, 390/4 of West Chalakkudy

Village, sought for a permission from the competent

authority under the Land Utilization Order for

removing certain mud from the property to see that

the same is used as a fish pond. Under Ext.P8,

permission was granted by the RDO subject to three

conditions which included a restriction on removing

clay and mud from the property and taking it out of

the property itself. Petitioner sought for variation

of the conditions and the RDO called for a report

from the Village Officer as evidenced by Ext.P10.

Writ petition has been filed alleging delay in orders

being passed on Ext.P9 whereby the petitioners

have sought for variation of the conditions.

2. I heard learned Government Pleader also.In

W.P.(C).14434/2009
2

the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the

first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P9 in the light

of Ext.P10, within four weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. While passing

orders on Ext.P9, RDO shall also take into account

the fact that the petitioners have been prevented

from acting on Ext.P8 and suitably extend the

validity of the permit.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs