MANJULACHELLUR, C.J.

1. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Nandakumara Menon and so also learned Sham Kumar for party respondents.

2. Apparently respondents 7 and 8 before learned Single Judge in the writ petition were the appellants in this appeal. The party respondents herein approached the learned Single Judge seeking quashing of Exts. P17 and P18 permissions granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer by virtue of Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order of 1967. The main contention urged by the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was appellants do possess other lands though in joint possession along with other owners of the land. Therefore when 87 cents of land is available to the family in the very same village, the Revenue Officer with ulterior motive and mala fide intention did not report existence of other lands belonging to these two appellants, hence the permissions at Exts.P17 and P18 given by the Revenue Divisional Officer is based on a wrong information given by the Village Officer. Hence they deserves to be quashed.

3. This contention of the writ petitioner was seriously resisted by the appellants and so far as other respondents, who are none other