SUNIL Vs. KILLIMANGALAM-PANJAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. Nandakumara Menon and so also learned Sham Kumar for party respondents. Apparently respondents 7 and 8 before learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition were the appellants in this appeal. The party respondents herein approached the learned Single Judge seeking quashing of Exts. P17 and P18 permissions granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer by virtue of Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order of 1967. The main contention urged by the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was appellants do possess other lands though in joint possession along with other owners of the land. Therefore when 87 cents of land is available to the family in the very same village, the Revenue Officer with ulterior motive and mala fide intention did not report existence of other lands belonging to these two appellants, hence the permissions at Exts.P17 and P18 given by the Revenue Divisional Officer is based on a wrong information given by the Village Officer. Hence they deserves to be quashed.

(2.) This contention of the writ petitioner was seriously resisted by the appellants and so far as other respondents, who are none other than the revenue officials, according to them, the permission granted under Exts.P17 and P18 are very much within the provisions of Kerala Land Utilization Order of 1967. Apparently, the lands under Exts. P17 and P18 were purchased in the year 2005 and in 2006. The applicants approached the revenue officials seeking conversion of the same in order to put up residential unit by each of the applicants under two different applications. Said permission was granted as per Exts.P17 and P18. So far as the compliance of Clause (6) of Kerala Land Utilization Order, learned Single Judge does not refer to any violation committed either by the revenue officials or by the appellants.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was though the permission sought was only to an extent of five cents by each of the appellants, which was granted under Exts.P17 and P18, factually they have filled up more than five cents of land by each of the applicant. If this is the grievance of the writ petitioner, he is entitled to bring to the notice of the revenue officers concerned and they can proceed against the appellant, in accordance with the procedure contemplated.