Petitioner challenges Ext. P6 notice inter alia contending that since his property is not a paddy land under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot exercise any power under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short KLU Order). 2. Apparently, the notice does not reflect that it is one issued under the KLU Order. Secondly, the petitioner had already submitted a representation before the RDO. Therefore, it is for the RDO to consider and pass appropriate orders on the same.
3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed or as follows:
The respondent shall consider Ext. P6 notice in accordance with procedure prescribed and appropriate orders shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/