M.P.JACKSON, Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court impugning certain conditions imposed in Ext.P11 Order issued by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order for short).

(2.) The petitioners specifically content that the impugned conditions imposed in the Ext.P11 are ones that could have been imposed by the RDO only under the mandate of Section 27 (A) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (herein after referred to as the "Paddy Land" for short); and that, going by the judgment of this Court in Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and another [2019(4)KHC 400] these conditions could not have been imposed in the said order.

(3.) The petitioners, however, concede that they have preferred Ext.P16 Appeal against the said order before the 4th respondent-Commissioner for Land Revenue, but contends that in spite of this, this Court can intervene in Ext.P11 and issue appropriate orders going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. v. Happy Homes (P) Ltd. [AIR 1968 SC 471].