Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38734/2010 of MEENAKSHI Vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR on 31 December 2010
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38734 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MEENAKSHI, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O. PAZHANIYAPPAN MUTHALI, MELPADAM KALAM,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932
WP(C).No. 38734 of 2010(N)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
MEENAKSHI, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.
PAZHANIYAPPAN MUTHALI, MELPADAM KALAM,
OLASSERY, P.O.KODUMBA, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PALAKKAD-678 001.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD-678 001.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KODUMBA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD-678 001.
4. SHRI. UDAYAKUMAR, S/O. KITTA D.,
GURUPOURNAMI, POOTHANKAD, OLASSERY,
KODUMBA, PALAKKAD-678 551.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.SURENDRAMOHAN, J.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challengingExt.P2 stop memo issued by the 3[rd] respondent directingher to stop conversion of her paddy fields into brick kilns.According to the petitioner her paddy fields are lying atfour different levels and in seven fragments. Thepetitioner is only trying to level the land and to convert allthe paddy fields into a single large field. The petitionercontends that conversion of her fields is with the intentionof engaging in agricultural operations employingmachinery, for the purpose of which it is necessary toconvert the paddy fields into a single large field.
2. It is noticed that the petitioner has alreadysubmitted Ext.P4 revision petition which is pendingbefore the first respondent. The contention of thepetitioner is that the 3[rd] respondent has no authority orpower to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P2. The petitioner also contends that though Ext.P4 is pending, noorders are passed thereon till date.
3. Ext.P4 is dated 27.12.2010. We are only on31.12.2010. Therefore it cannot be said that there hasbeen any delay in considering and disposing of Ext.P4.However, it is pointed out that the soil that is sold fromthe paddy fields are to be used for the manufacturing ofbricks which activity is only a seasonal activity andtherefore the delay in the disposal of the appeal is causingfinancial loss to the petitioner. It is not possible for me toascertain the exact position with regard to the petitioner'sland, sitting in the summary jurisdiction under Article 226of the Constitution. Since Ext. P4 revision is pendingbefore the first respondent it is sufficient that the saidauthority is directed to consider and dispose of therevision expeditiously.
4. In view of the above this writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P4revision submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this judgement, afteraffording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioneralso. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this writpetition along with a copy of this judgement before thefirst respondent for prompt compliance.
K.SURENDRAMOHAN,
JUDGE.
rkc