High Court Kerala High Court

P.Vijayan vs The District Collector on 13 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
P.Vijayan vs The District Collector on 13 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 4339 of 2008(N)


1. P.VIJAYAN , S/O. PADMANABHAN
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MANIAMMA,W/O.P.VIJAYAN

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE TAHASILDAR KOTTARAKKARA,QUILON.

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VILLAGE OFFICE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :13/02/2008

 O R D E R
                               ANTONY DOMINIC, J.



                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                         W.P.(C) No. 4339  OF 2008 N

                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =



                     Dated this the  13 th  February, 2008



                                  J U D G M E N T

Petitioner submits that by Ext. P1, a plot of 10 cents of land

was purchased by him. Thereafter Ext. P2 application was made to

the 3rd respondent seeking his permission under the Kerala Land

Utilisation Order for filling up the same. It is stated that while

orders were not passed, Ext. P3 prohibitory order was issued and it

is challenging Ext. P3 this writ petition is filed.

2. It is pointed out by the learned Govt. Pleader that without

obtaining sanction under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, when

land was attempted to be filled up, respondents have issued Ext. P3

prohibitory order.

3. Evidently, the land purchased by the petitioner needed

permission for conversion and it is therefore that the petitioner had

made Ext. P2 application. Once Ext. P2 application is made,

petitioner should not have done anything without obtaining

permission. He having attempted to convert the land without

W.P.(C) No. 4339 OF 2008 -2-

permission, the respondents cannot be faulted for issuing Ext. P3

prohibitory order.

4. Be that as it may, since Ext. P2 application filed by the

petitioner is pending, the 3rd respondent is obliged to consider the

same on merits. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing

that the 3rd respondent shall take up for consideration Ext. P2 and

pass orders thereon with notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this

judgment.

In the meanwhile Ext. P3 order will continue to be in force and

its further continuance will depend upon the decision on Ext. P2

application made by the petitioner.

ANTONY DOMINIC

JUDGE

jan/-