IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33925 of 2008(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAMEER KATHURIA S/O.LATE SUBHASH KATHURIA APPEALS, OPPOSITE TO ICICI BANK PADMA JUNCTION, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM SMT.URSULA FRANCIES RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., DIST,IDUKKI. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHINNAKANAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, DIST. IDUKKI. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA GOVT. SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.33925 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner purchased an extent of 24.28 ares of land in Sy.No.50/2,5 of Chinnakanal Village from one Rajagopalan. Rajagopalan was assigned the said land under Exhibit P2 patta issued under the provisions of the Kerala Lands Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Lands Prior to 1.1.1977) Special Rules, 1993. Petitioner is now aggrieved by Exhibit P7 notice issued by the Tahasildar under Rule 16(4) of the said rules requiring the petitioner to show cause why the transfer effected under Exhibit P2 should not be cancelled, inter alia, on the ground that there is violation of the rules by virtue of the assignment in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner then preferred Exhibit P8 representation before the Government purportedly invoking Rule 17 (10) of the Rules. Rule 17 (10) of the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of occupations of Forest Land prior to W.P ( C) No.33925 of 2008 2 1.1.1997) Special Rules, 1993 reads as follows. “The Government may at any time revise cancel or alter on their own motion or otherwise any decision made or order passed by the Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector, or the Board of Revenue under these rules.” Provided that no such decision or order shall be revised or cancelled or altered under this sub-rule without giving the party effected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard and no proceedings in this behalf shall be initiated by the Government after the expiry of three years from the date of the original order”. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents to consider Exhibit P8. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 4. In my view, Exhibit P8 is misconceived. Firstly, the power under Rule 17 (10) cannot extend to a situation where the Government can revise an order passed by the Tahasildar under the said Rules and then order that assignment must be treated as having been effected under some other rule. The power under Rule 17 (10) is intended only to interfere with an infraction committed by any W.P ( C) No.33925 of 2008 3 subordinate. This shall not extend to a situation where assignment can be treated as one effected under other some other Rules. Secondly, there is a bar under the proviso to Rule 17 (10) against exercise of the power under Rule 17(10) beyond a period of three years from the date of the original order. Though the power is available to be exercised other wise than on a motion taken in that behalf by the Government, I am of the view that the power will apply in relation to any such motion at the instance of a party. Exhibit P8 is therefore not maintainable. I am also of the view that petitioner has ample opportunity to file such objections to Exhibit-P7. Final order may be passed by the Tahasildar only after considering the said contentions. The writ petition is disposed of subject to the above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.33925 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.33925 of 2008 5