IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3854 of 2011(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. BABY.T.P,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.POULOSE, THOZHUTHUMKUDY HOUSE,KARIMUGAL.P.O,VADAVUKODE, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ELDHO @ ELDHOSE,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VIRUTHANATTU KORA, MOLEKUDIYIL, RAYAMANGALAM KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SRI.C.P.REJI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN,LAND BOARD,KUNANTHUNADU (DEPYTY COLLECTOR LR),COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 030. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE,PULLAVAZHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 541. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 3854 of 2011 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioners, they are persons entitled to the benefit of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 2005. It is stated that, by order dated 28-08- 1997, second respondent held that an extent of 97.37.325 acres of land, which originally belonged to one Varkey Kora, was excess land in terms of the provisions contained in Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. Out of the said land, the 1st petitioner owns 47.22 Ares and 32.38 Ares. In so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, he owns 14.41 Ares. According to the petitioners, these properties qualify for the benefit of Section 7E. It is stated that claiming the benefit of Section 7E, they have already filed Exts.P6 and P7 applications before the second respondent. It is stated that the second respondent is liable to pass orders on Exts.P6 and P7, consistent with the view W.P.(C) No.3854/2011 : 2 : taken in Ext.P5 where similar claims raised have been dealt with. It is stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid applications, tax is not accepted by the revenue authorities and complaining of the above, the writ petition has been filed. 3. At this stage, in my view, all that is required is that the second respondent should consider Exts.P6 and P7 applications made by the petitioners under Section 7E of the Act and pass orders thereon. This, the second respondent shall do, with notice to the parties concerned, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge