IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16808 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAJAN, S/O. APPU, AGED 36 YEARS, KUMBARATHERUVU HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR - 680 001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKETHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 587. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SMT. RAJASREE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16808 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3418/1/06 OF SRO, PAZHAYANNUR. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1398/98 OF SRO, PAZHAYANNUR EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1655/1/2002 OF SRO, PAZHAYANNUR EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1656/1/2002 OF SRO, PPAZHAYANNUR. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 01.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.06.2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 16808 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 22nd June , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts. P6 and P7 proceedings of the third respondent, issued under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order,1967. It is stated that the petitioner has already preferred Ext. P8 representation before the second respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court because of the coercive proceedings being pursued without any regard to the pendency of Ext.P8 representation. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner is having an alternate remedy by way of appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner is relegated to avail the said remedy, if aggrieved of the impugned proceedings . As such, interference is declined. The writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the W.P.(C) No. 16808 OF 2011 2 rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue such remedy before the second respondent. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such remedy, the coercive proceedings, if any, pursuant to Exts.P6 and P7 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk