IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7569 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.V.JOHN, S/O.VARKEY V.U., VATTAKUNNEL HOUSE, MAVINTHODY, KADAVOOR P.O.-686 671, (VIA) POTHANIKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. VARKEY THOMAS, S/O.VARKEY V.U., VATTAKUNNEL HOUSE, MAVINTHODY, KADAVOOR P.O.-686 671, (VIA) POTHANIKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. V.V.STEPHEN, S/O.VARKEY V.U., VATTAKUNNEL HOUSE, MAVINTHODY, KADAVOOR P.O.-676 671, (VIA) POTHANIKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.7569 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners have approached this Court, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the first respondent with regard to the disposal of the statutory revisions preferred as Exhibits P3 and P4 followed by Exhibit P6, challenging Exhibits P1 and P2 orders. In fact, Exhibits P1 and P2 are the orders passed by the appellate authority (the second respondent), confirming the orders passed by the original authority rejecting the revisions preferred by the petitioners and their father for assignment of the land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, initially one of the two revision petitions was returned as per Exhibit P5 stating that it was belated, whereupon the petitioners preferred Exhibit P6 pointing out that there was no time limit for filing the revision petition and hence, the proceedings were well within the time. Grievance of the petitioners is that the matter is still to be finalised. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that Exhibit P5 issued by the first respondent is virtually dismissing the revision petition on the ground of delay and not a matter of rejection for curing the defect and this being the position, Exhibit P6 preferred before the first respondent cannot tilt the balance in any manner. WP(C) No.7569/11 - 2 - 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits, with reference to the relevant provisions of law that observation of the first respondent as to the alleged delay in filing the revision petition is quite wrong and misconceived and that Rule 17 of the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularization of occupation of Forest Lands prior to 1.1.77) Special Rules, 1993 does not stipulate any time limit in this regard. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the mater requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent. 6. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider Exhibit P6 and pass appropriate orders thereon, based on which, appropriate orders shall be passed on Exhibits P3 and P4 as well. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent for taking further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs