In his petition, the landowner, C. Vinumon of Kannadi, Palakkad, challenged the RDO’s order dismissing his utility to vary the character of his property within the data, with out passing a talking order. This was allegedly carried out regardless of the High Court directing him to rethink the matter. He contended that the property had already been transformed in 2008 and talked about within the data as fallow land, earlier than the enactment of the related legislation.
The former RDO contended that he had signed the order that was ready by a junior superintendent in his workplace since he was busy with post-election duties.
Stating that authorised officers are usually not laymen, and that they’re senior officers of the State service, the courtroom mentioned that the current case was an apt instance of an authorised officer issuing a stereotype order even after the courtroom put aside the identical and directed its reconsideration. The identical order was repeated with none change, together with the modulation of the sentences, it added.
Published – November 13, 2025 01:45 am IST








