IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4779 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- POULOSE, S/O. DAVID, AGED 54 YEARS, THEYKKAMKUNNATH VEEDU, RAYAMANGALAM, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, LAND BOARD, KUNNATHUNADU (DEPUTY COLLECTOR LR) COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM - PIN - 682030 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PULLUVAZHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-683545. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 4779 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 16th February , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the steps being taken by the respondents to force the petitioner to part with the property purchased by him, paying valuable sale consideration stating that it is part of excess land, which is to be surrendered to the Government. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of amendment to the Kerala Land Reforms Act in the year 2005 and incorporation of Section 7E and 84(4), the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit as a deemed tenant. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to Ext. P3 judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a similar circumstance, the Review Petitions preferred by the aggrieved parties therein, who were similarly situated, were directed to be considered by the second respondent , which resulted in Ext. P4 order dated 25.11.2010, granting the benefit to the aggrieved persons therein. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 4779 OF 2011 2 is also entitled to get similar benefit . 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well . 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 review petition preferred by the petitioner, in accordance with law and in the light of Ext. P3 judgment and the consequential order, as borne by Ext. P4. Appropriate orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that 'status quo' will continue till such time. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk