A RAJAN, S/O RAMANKUTTY MOOTHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LANE REVENUE; REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE; VILLAGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad for permission to convert 1.25 acres of land belonging to him for planting rubber. By Ext.P4 order passed on 26.10.2009, the said application was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 appeal under clause 11 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 before the Land Revenue Commissioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Land Revenue Commissioner to hear and dispose of Ext.P5 appeal expeditiously.

(2.) Under clause 11 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, an appeal lies from Ext.P4 to the Land Revenue Commissioner. The petitioner had in the application on which Ext.P4 order was passed sought permission to cultivate the land with rubber. The Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the said application mainly on the ground that the land in question is governed by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 inter alia on the ground that before the said order was passed, he was not put on notice or heard. The petitioner submits that though he was present outside the chambers of the Revenue Divisional Officer, he was not called to attend the hearing, that the hearing was held exparte and that an order was passed thereafter. In my opinion, these are matters which the appellate authority should consider when it takes a decision on Ext.P5.