Muhammed Zainul Abdeen v. Village Officer, Aluva West; Circle Inspector of Police, Aluva; Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; P.K. Makkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/4TH BHADRA, 1935 WP(C).No. 27258 of 2012 (F) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------MUHAMMED ZAINUL ABDEEN, S/O. IMBICHI HAJI @ MOIN CEHRACHAMVEETTIL PUTHENPURAYIL, MANGALAM VILLAGE TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SMT.M.KABANI DINESH SMT.ASHIFA YOUSEFF RESPONDENTS : ---------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST P.O. ALUVA - 683 101 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 101 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 001. 4. P.K. MAKKAR, PERUMPALLIYIL HOUSE, EDATHALA. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 561 R4 BY ADV. SRI.BENNY VARGHESE R3 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOYUZ (REVENUE) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-06-2013, THE COURT ON 26-08-2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV WP(C).No. 27258 of 2012 (F) APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT-P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2643 OF 1995 OF ALUVA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. EXHIBIT-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1987 OF 2005 DATED 28-3-2005 OF ALUVA SRO. EXHIBIT-P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25-9-2012 NO.9962 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXHIBIT-P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT R.A TO SRI.UNNEEN, SAINUN ABID EXHIBIT-P4(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K (1) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT R.A TO K.K.ABDU RAHIMAN. EXHIBIT-P4(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K (2) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT R.A TO M.K.ABDUL SALAM. EXHIBIT-P4(C) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K (3) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. R.A S.MUHAMMED HARIS EXHIBIT-P4(D) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K (4) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT R.A T.V.ALIKUNJU EXHIBIT-P4(E) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K (5) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT R.A.M.K.ABDUSALAM. EXHIBIT-P4(F) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K (6) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT R.A.TO NIYASI AND NIZAMY. EXHIBIT-P4(G) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K (7) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT R.A.TO M.K.ABDUL SALAM. EXHIBIT-P4(H) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K (8) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT R.A.TO MOOSA KARAKALATH. EXHIBIT-P4(I) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K (9) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT R.A.TO K.K.HUSSAIN. EXHIBIT-P4(J) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K (10) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT R.A ABDUL RAHIMAN. EXHIBIT-P4(K) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K (11) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT R.A P.T.UNNEEN. EXHIBIT-P4(L) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K (12) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT R.A. TO K.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN. WP(C).No. 27258 of 2012 (F) EXHIBIT-P4(M) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7512/95/K(13) DATED 28-11-1995 OF 3RD RESPONDENT RA TO SRI.K.K.HUSSAIN. EXHIBIT-P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7-11-2012 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9-11-2012 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER VIDE HIS FILE NO.843/12 DTD.1.2.2012 EXHIBIT-P8 - PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER THE ADJOINING LAND RECLAIMED AS PER EXHIBIT P4 SERIES, ADJOINING MOSQUE ETC. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT R3(a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.LRA1-4247/13 DATED 08.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE ANNEXURE R3(b) : TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK ANNEXURE R3(c) : TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN ON 21.2.2013 EXHIBIT R3(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22.02.2013 EXHIBIT R3(e) : TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY WHICH WAS TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE ON 28.02.2013 EXHIBIT R3(f) : A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPERTIES COMPRISED IN RE-SURVEY NO.22 EXHIBIT R3(g) : A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDES THE WET LAND. /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE AV ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** .............................................................................. ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** ......................................................................... **Dated this the 26[th] August, 2013** ## **J U D G M E N T** The hindrance caused in filling the partly reclaimed land covered by Exts.P1/P2 title deeds, inspite of Exts. P4 series orders passed by the third respondent as early as on 28.11.1995 permitting such conversion for making use of the land for other purposes under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, is sought to be intercepted by way of this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a Non Resident Indian (NRI), doing business abroad, who purchased 10.11 Ares of partly reclaimed land as per Ext.P1 Sale Deed 2643/1995 of SRO, Aluva. The nearby properties having different extents were purchased by 12 other persons as well, in furtherance to a common objective to have the land developed and made use of for other purposes. With intent to make use of the properties in a more effective manner, the properties so purchased by all the above 13 persons including the petitioner, as per separate documents mentioned in paragraph '3' of the writ petition, were brought to a common pool and the extent and boundaries were re-fixed, effecting partition **2** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** and allotting separate Schedules to the persons concerned. Ext.P2 is a copy of the partition deed as aforesaid, executed on 28.03.2005, wherein Schedule No.7 stands allotted to the petitioner, who has been described as party No.9 in the said Deed. Ever since, the petitioner has been enjoying the above property, which is having an extent of 12.44 Ares, also remitting Basic Tax, as borne by Ext. P3. In furtherance to the common desire to develop the properties as mentioned already, the petitioner and the other parties to Ext.P2 Partition Deed (altogether 13 persons), submitted separate applications under KLU Order before the third respondent, for sanction so as to enable them to make use of the properties for other purposes. 3. The third respondent conducted an enquiry through the Tahsildar, Aluva, who submitted a report showing the particulars, including the extent, lie and nature etc of the properties stating that no paddy cultivation was being conducted in the said land for quite long and that problems such as water logging or labour problems would not arise due to conversion of the land and that the land was not fit for paddy cultivation. **3** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** Based on the said report, the third respondent passed Ext. P4 series orders for conversion of the land except for cultivation of Paddy, subject to the conditions specified therein. 4. The case of the petitioner is that all the other 12 persons who are the beneficiaries of Ext.P4 series orders effected complete conversion, but the petitioner who was abroad could not completely fill the partly reclaimed land at that point of time. On his return in the year 2012, with intent to construct a residential building in the property, the petitioner proceeded with steps to fully develop the property in similar lines as done in respect of the neighbouring properties, where various improvements/buildings have already come up. With this intent, as a prudent and law abiding citizen, the petitioner brought the intention to the notice of all concerned, as to the steps proposed to be taken in this regard. But the first respondent virtually prevented the petitioner from pursuing such steps, referring to the commencement of 'Act 28 of 2008', pointing out that, if any further filling was to be effected, it could only be in tune with the provisions of the said Act. Since Ext.P5 representation preferred **4** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** by the petitioner before the first respondent was not favourably considered, the petitioner approached the third respondent by filing Ext.P6, which also did not turn to be fruitful and hence the writ petition, to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to cause any obstruction in the execution of Ext.P4 order in respect of the property covered by Exts.P1 to P3. 5. A counter affidavit dated 05.01.2013 has been filed on behalf of the third respondent conceding the fact that the third respondent had already given sanction for reclamation of the land of the petitioner as per proceedings No. K.Dis.7512/95/K dated 28.11.1995. But the petitioner had not converted the land as per the said order. It is pointed out that the said property has been described as 'Nilam" in the BTR and as ' **Wet land'** in the Draft Data Bank Register and hence the petitioner is not entitled to have any relief , in view of commencement of Act 28 of 2008. 6. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 23.01.2013, it was conceded that Ext.P4 series orders stand intact and is not varied in any manner. As such, the Court required the learned Government Pleader to ascertain whether **5** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** there was any time limit to give effect to Ext.P4 series orders under KLU Order. This led to filing of another counter affidavit dated 12.02.2013, however existence of such provision is not brought to light. It is further stated that the property stands classified as ' **Nilam** ' in the BTR and seemed as ' _**water logged';**_ however conceding that sanction was given by the third respondent for reclamation of the said land, as per proceedings No.K.Dis. 7512/95/K dated 28.11.1995. It is also stated that a 'canal' is constructed in the middle of the land, for flow of water. It is pointed out that Ext.R3(a) Circular had been issued by the Commissioner for Land Revenue, as LRAI-4247/13 dated 08.02.2013 (i.e. after the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by this Court to ascertain the time limit if any, with reference to KLU Order to have Ext.P4 series implemented), whereby the Commissioner for Land Revenue had instructed all concerned that, even in respect of paddy lands for which sanction was obtained for reclamation under the KLU Order before the commencement of the Act 28 of 2008, it cannot be reclaimed on the strength of such orders, after the commencement of Act 28 **6** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** of 2008. In other words, the absence of such stipulation in the KLU Order, made the Commissioner for Land Revenue to have issued Ext. R3(a) Circular, after the interim order dated 23.01.2013 was passed by this Court. 7. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit challenging the power, jurisdiction and authority of the Commissioner for Land Revenue to have issued Ext. R3(a) Circular, on various grounds. It is pointed out that the State Government alone is the competent authority to make the relevant rules by virtue of Section 30 of the Act 28 of 2008, also giving the factual particulars as to the non-framing of any such rule by the Government, that too, inspite of the Legislative Assembly being in session, as contemplated. The petitioner also points out that the property is neither a 'Paddy' nor a 'Wet land' and that it is not **'water logged** '. It is stated that the property is situated in the heart of Aluva town, very near to Church, Mosque, Shopping complex, residential buildings etc. and that there is no paddy land anywhere in the near vicinity. 8. The respondents have produced a copy of the Data Bank **7** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** Register as **Annexure R3(b),** along with I.A.No.2995 of 2013, besides producing some photographs of the property as **Annexure R3(c)** to show the lie and location, asserting that the property is shown as ' **wet land** ' in the Data Bank Register. The petitioner has produced a copy of the Certificate issued by the first respondent Village Officer on 01.02.2012, certifying that he had conducted a site inspection, and it was found that there was no paddy cultivation in the petitioner's property or in the nearby properties for quite long and that, the lands were not fit for any paddy cultivation. The existence of a Mosque in the nearby property is also mentioned therein; a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P7 along with I.A.No.2963 of 2013. The actual lie and location and the nature of the property has been sought to be asserted with reference to the photographs taken from different angles showing the existence of a Mosque nearby and various other buildings and improvements, produced as Ext.P8 along with I.A.No.3443 of 2013. 9. Some additional documents, such as a report of the Village Officer, photographs and a rough sketch have been **8** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** sought to be produced by the respondents as **Exts.R3(d) to R3 (g)** along with I.A.No. 3424 of 2013 . 10. Mr. Mohammed Yousfuff, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to substantiate the facts and figures with reference to the pleadings and proceedings and as to the eligibility of the petitioner to have the reliefs sought for, which is vehemently opposed from the part of the respondents refererring to the materials brought on record, as put forth by Mr. P.K. Soyuz, the learned Spl. Government Pleader (Revenue). 11. The basic question to be considered is whether the property, which was partly reclaimed land as borne by Ext.P1 title deed dated 16.05.1995 and described in the 7th Schedule of Ext.P2 partition Deed, is a ' **paddy land** ' or ' **wet land** ' as defined under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and whether the said enactment will take away the rights conferred upon the petitioner/concerned parties, by virtue of Ext.P4 series orders passed by the third respondent enabling reclamation under the **9** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** relevant provisions of KLU Order as early as in 1995. 12. Act 28 of 2008 came into operation w.e.f. 12.08.2008. The object of the enactment is discernible from the 'preamble', which reads as follows: _“Preamble:- Whereas, it has come to the notice of the Government that indiscriminate and uncontrolled reclamation and massive conversion of paddy land and wet land are taking place in the State._ _And Whereas, there is no existing law to restrict effectively, the conversion or reclamation of paddy land;_ _And Whereas, the Government are satisfied that it is expedient. in public interest, to provide for the conservation of paddy land and wet land and to restrict the conversion or reclamation thereof, in order to promote agricultural growth, to ensure food security and to sustain the ecological system in the State of Kerala.”_ The terms ' **paddy land** ' and ' **wet land** ' are defined under sections 2(xii) and 2(xviii), which are extracted below for convenience of reference. **10** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** ## Section 2: _“(xii) “_ _**paddy land** ” means all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals.”_ “ _(xviii) “_ _**wet land** ” means land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems , where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterized by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, marshes, salt marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and rivers.”_ 13. The fact remains that the property is described as ' **Nilam** ' in BTR. But, it has been made clear by this Court ( both Division Bench and Single Bench) on many an occasion, that mere description of the property in revenue records will not reflect the correct nature of the property, which has to be **11** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** ascertained with reference to the actual facts and figures, as on date. A Division Bench of this Court, as per the decision in **2010** **(2) KLT 617** ( _**Praveen vs. Land Revenue Commissioner),**_ has made it clear that the competent authority has to ascertain whether the property is actually a ' _**paddy land**_ ' or ' _**wet land**_ ' and if it is not so, the claim has to be considered under the relevant provisions of the KLU Order. 14. As mentioned already, even in Ext. P1 document, the nature of the property is shown as ' _**partly reclaimed land'.**_ Further reclamation was permitted by the third respondent, as per Ext.P4 series orders passed way back in 1995, on the basis of site inspection conducted by the Tahsildar and the report certifying that there was no paddy cultivation for quite long and that no environmental problem/labour problem would result, if reclamation was permitted and that the property was not fit for paddy cultivation. It was after considering the factual position as above, that the third respondent/competent authority passed Ext.P4 series orders under the KLU Order, subject to the conditions specified therein. The relevant portion of the said **12** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** ## order and the conditions are relevant and hence are extracted below : _“The Tahsildar has reported that the Sy.No.22 Block 78 is having an extent of ....cents which is situated in Aluva West Village and that no paddy cultivation is being conducted in this land for last long period. The Tahsildar further reported that no problem like water logging or labour problem will arise due to conversion of land and that this land is not fit for paddy cultivation._ _In the above circumstances, sanction is hereby accorded to Sri. K.K. Abdul Rahiman, Kottuvally, Kozhikode for the conversion of 25 cents of wet land in Sy.No.22 Block 78 of Aluva West Village for cultivation except paddy subject to the following conditions under Sec. 6(2) of KLU order 1967._ _1. Land holder who converts the paddy field hold by him into garden land on building site are liable to pay cess under rule 3 to the local authority as and where the cess is fixed by the local authority._ _2. The assessment right, if any should not be affected._ _3. The neighbouring Nilams, Purayidams etc. should not be affected in any way._ **13** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** _4. The drainage facilities should be provided in nearby areas._ 15. There is no case for the respondents that the factual position as reported by the Tahsildar and accepted by the third respondent/RDO has undergone any change as on date. As such, the property which was not used for paddy cultivation for decades continues to be the same and the land is not fit for cultivation as certified by the Tahsildar and as affirmed by the third respondent/RDO. This order stands intact and has not been varied /modified by any authorities, by an acceptable process known to law. The commencement of the Act 28 of 2008 dealing with Paddy land/wet land, as on the date of commencement of the said Act, does not and cannot nullify the orders already passed by the authorities under KLU Order, much prior to the commencement of the said Act. This is more so, when there is no total prohibition of conversion even under the Act 28/2008 and that conversion is possible to the extent as specified therein, with further power for the Government to grant 'exemption' under Section 10 of the Act. Ext.P4 series orders do not specify **14** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** any time limit to effect the conversion and no provision in the KLU Order is pointed out from the part of the respondents as to the period within which the orders passed under Clause '6' have to be implemented. This being the position, **Annexure R3 (a)** Circular passed by the Commissioner for Land Revenue on 08.02.2013 (in furtherance to the order made by this Court on 23.01.2013) restricting the scope of KLU with reference to the Act 28/2008, cannot be of any consequence in the case of the petitioner, who was granted permission to have the property reclaimed as per Ext.P4 series orders. This Court also finds support in the above regard, from the decisions rendered by this Court in _**Mohanan vs. RDO**_ ( **2010 (3) KLT 67)** and also from the decision reported in **2011 (1) KLT 526** _**(Kaipadath Property Development Company (Pvt.)Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and others).**_ 16. It is contended by the respondents that the property has been described as 'wet land' in the Data Bank Register, a copy of which has been produced as **Annexure R3(b)** along with I.A.No.2995 of 2013. The entry shown therein is with **15** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** reference to the property owned by the predecessor-in-interest (Annamma Abraham etc., Aluva) with reference to 'Sy.No.256-5- 1,5-2,5'. The property belonging to the petitioner in 'Sy.No.256/6' as mentioned in Exts.P1 to P3 title documents, is not included in the Data Bank Register, though a portion of the property is comprised in Sy.No.256/5/1. Exts. P1/P2 title deeds were executed and registered, and the property was being enjoyed by the parties concerned, also satisfying the basic tax even much prior to the commencement of the Act 28 of 2008. 17. The factual position as to the nature of the land is also discernible from Ext.P7 Certificate dated 01.02.2012 issued by the first respondent himself, asserting that, though the property has been described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, on inspection, it was found that no paddy cultivation was being effected in the said property or in the nearby properties; that a Mosque is situated in the nearby property; that the property is not fit for paddy cultivation and that the property was already permitted to be reclaimed as per order passed by the RDO as early as in the year 1995. ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** ## **16** 18. It is to be noted that the Kerala Land Utilisation Order has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955, which is a Central Legislation and it has been issued with prior approval of the Central Government. The Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1958 was subsequently repealed as per KLU Order 1967 and the latter is still in force and liable to be applied in respect of cases not covered by Act 28 of 2008, as made clear by the Division Bench of this Court in **2010 (2) KLT 617** _**( Praveen vs Land Revenue Commissioner**_ ). Commencement of Act 28 of 2008 does not empower any authority to vary or modify any order passed by the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. 19. The entries in **Annexure.R3(b)/** Draft Data Bank Register do not disclose the actual facts. The entry showing the nature of the land as _**'wet land**_ ' has been inserted in the relevant column by way of ' _**manual insertion**_ ', while the entry in the relevant column against _**Sl.No. 149**_ pertaining to the property of another person, has been shown by way of _**'printed**_ **17** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** _**entry**_ '. What made the authorities concerned to have incorporated a ' _**manual entry'**_ and on what date it was entered, is not discernible. That apart, the said Data Bank Register is only a 'Draft' one, which is still to be notified in the Gazette. In any view of the matter, by virtue of the clear definition of the term _**'wet land'**_ as given under Section 2(xviii)of the Act 28,2008; the photographs produced by the respondents and those produced by the petitioner showing the lie and nature, existence of improvements and nearby buildings in the immediate neighbourhood and the factual position certified by the Tahsildar, as per his report, forming the basis for Ext. P4 series orders, this Court finds it difficult to accept the proposition of the respondents that the property is a _**'wet land'**_ under Section 2(xviii). The said contention is repelled accordingly. 20. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the property involved herein is not a ' _**wet land**_ ' as defined under Section 2(xviii) of the Act 28 of 2008. In view of Ext.P4 series orders passed by the third respondent under the relevant provisions of KLU Order enabling conversion of partly reclaimed **18** ## **W.P.(C)No. 27258 OF 2012** land, subject to the conditions specified therein (which stands intact even as on this date) and since no time limit is specified in the said Order and no such provision in the KLU Order specifying the validity of such order is brought to the notice of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to proceed with further steps, based on the permission already given by the third respondent to develop the properties. This shall be strictly in accordance with the conditions imposed vide Ext.P4, and the commencement of the Act 28 of 2008 shall not be a bar in this regard. The writ petition is allowed . No cost. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** _lk_