IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2625 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SMT.KHADEEJA, W/O.IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT BILAL NAGAR, NELLIKATTA, NEKERJE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR (LA), KASARAGOD, PIN-670 121. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD, PIN-670 315. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 4. KAMALA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O.KORAGA, SALATHADKA, NEKERJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-670 544. 5. MALINI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O.GOVINDAN, CHOORIPALLAM, NEKERJE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-670 544. 6. CHENIYARU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O.CHANIYA, CHOORIPALAM, NEKERJE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-670 544. W.P.(C). NO.2625/2011-C: 7. THANKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, D/O.KUNHA, ADRUKUZHI, PADI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-670 121. 8. GOPALA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O.CHANIYA, AYALODU, PADI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-670 121. 9. M.P.SHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O.MARTHADI, MIADIPALLA, NEKERJE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-670 544. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.2625 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, she is in possession of 56 cents of land. She applied for assignment of the land and she was assigned only 7 cents and the remaining land was assigned in favour of respondents 4 to 9. Petitioner filed an appeal and that was disposed of by Ext.P2 order passed by the 2nd respondent. In that order, finding that a portion of the land in possession of the petitioner has been assigned to certain other persons, the 2nd respondent directed re-assignment of the land retaining the total extent ordered to be assigned to the petitioner. Against Ext.P2 order, petitioner filed a revision before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent confirmed Ext.P2 by Ext.P3 order. It is challenging Exts P2 and P3 and seeking an order for the assignment of the entire 56 cents of land, this writ petition is filed. 2. A reading of Exts.P2 and P3 orders show that apart from 7 cents ordered to be assigned in favour of the petitioner, the remaining property has been earmarked for W.P (C) No. 2625 of 2011 2 assignment to persons belonging to SC/ST category. Petitioner does not belong to SC/ST category. Therefore, she cannot have any right on the remaining cents of land. In that view of the matter, and particularly having regard to the fact that in Ext.P2, the 2nd respondent has ordered re-assignment of the land retaining the total extent ordered to be assigned to the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with this writ petition. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma W.P (C) No. 2625 of 2011 3