IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6451 of 2009(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.V.ABDUL NAZAR, KARUPPAM VEETIL, THRIKKAVU, PONNANI.REP. BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUNIL KUMAR.A.C. S/O.CHATTA V.P. 44 YEARS,APSARA HOUSE, CHANGARAMKULAM ALANKODE P.O, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.BEERAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.V.P.REGHURAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI TALUK, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 6451 OF 2009 (B) ==================== Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims ownership over 3.6 acres of land covered by Exts.P4, P6, P8 and P9 documents. While the petitioner was thus enjoying the land, he was issued with Ext.P10 notice, on the allegation that 3.5 acres of land in his possession was Government property. He filed Ext.P11 reply to the 1st respondent, but however, Ext.P12 order order was issued by the 1st respondent requiring him to vacate from the premises. 2. He filed an appeal and that was rejected by Ext.P13 order. Revision filed was also rejected by Ext.P14 order of the 3rd respondent. Still aggrieved, he has filed Ext.P15 revision accompanied by Ext.P16 stay petition before the 4th respondent and these are pending. In the meanwhile, petitioner apprehends that Ext.P12 order may be implemented. It is with that grievance the writ petition is filed seeking an order for an expeditious disposal of the revision pending before the 4th respondent. 3. The facts stated above shows that Ext.P15 revision filed by the petitioner before the 4th respondent aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against him is pending. Therefore, at this stage I do not think that the WPC 6451/09 :2 : orders impugned in the revision should be implemented. 4. In view of this, I direct the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P15 revision with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that in the meanwhile, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P12, P13 and P14 will be kept in abeyance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp