IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 18069 of 2003(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SUBBA MANIYANI, S/O.KORAGA MANIYANI, KAYINAMOOLA, PERDALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD, KANHANGAD P.O. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ASSIGNMENT, KUMBALA, P.O., KUMBALA. 4. RATHI S., ALVA, KADARBEDU, BADIADKA VILLAGE, P.O. PERDALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. PUSHPALATHA M. SHETTY, KADARBEEDU, BADIADKA VILLAGE, P.O. PERDALA. 6. PREMALATHA S. ALVA, KADARBEEDU, B ADIADKA VILLAGE, P.O. PERDALA, KASARAGOD TALUK. R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU R4 & 5 BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1.10.2010, THE COURT ON 01/10/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18069 of 2003(A) --------------------------------------- ORDER ON IA. 3869/2003 IN W.P.(C) 18069/2003 CLOSED 1.10.2010 Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE / TRUE COPY / APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.3.1993 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.9.01 IN A.A.42/95 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY ORDER DATED 30.4.2003 IN LR (J) 2.39897/01/D.DIS. PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE THASILDAR DATED 29.7.1987. EXT.P5(a). COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT PAID BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT TO THE DISPUTED PROPERTY DT. 4.2.87. EXT.P5(b). COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT PAID BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT TO THE DISPUTED PROPERTY DT. 11.2.88. EXT.5(c). COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT PAID BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT TO THE DISPUTED PROPERTY DT. 3.3.89. EXT.5(d). COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT PAID BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT TO THE DISPUTED PROPERTY DT. 26.3.90. EXT.5(e). COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT PAID BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT TO THE DISPUTED PROPERTY DT. 25.3.91. EXT.5(f). COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT PAID BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT TO THE DISPUTED PROPERTY DT. 22.5.92.. EXT.(g). COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT PAID BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT TO THE DISPUTED PROPERTY DT. 10.7.09. EXT.R3(a). COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. 101/1979 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KASARGODE. EXTR3(b). COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BEFORE THE BOARD OF REVENUE, TIVANDRUM. EXT.R3(c). COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BOARD OF REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.R3(d). COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S. 25 OF 1984 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, KASARGODE. P.A. TO JUDGE VK / TRUE COPY / ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.18069 of 2003 (A) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 1st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3 order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner exercising his revisional jurisdiction conferred under the provisions of the Land Assignment Act. 2. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, Ext.P1 is the proceedings of the Tahsildar assigning 1.28 acres of land to the petitioner. It would appear that the mother of respondents 4 to 6 filed an appeal against Ext.P1 before the 2nd respondent, who by Ext.P2 dated 15/09/2001 rejected the appeal. Respondents 4 to 6 carried the matter in revision before the 1st respondent, who by Ext.P3 order dated 30/04/2003 remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for denovo consideration. It is challenging this the writ petition has been filed. 3. Although, the petitioner impugns the order on merits and respondents have filed affidavits disputing the contentions of WP(C) No.18069/2003 -2- the petitioner for assignment of the land, in the nature of the pleadings in the writ petition and Ext.P3 order, I do not think it necessary to examine those issues. 4. Ext.P3 order under challenge shows that the 1st respondent has noticed the contentions raised by the revision petitioners and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter in the concluding portion of the order, he has stated thus:- “The counsel for the respondent contended that the main question to be decided is as to whether the assignee is eligible for assignment at the time of assignment. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the wife of the assignee was a teacher and both are earning members of the family. But at the time of assignment she was not an earning member. The revision petitioners are not entitled to claim any other ground in this case since the other grounds alleged earlier in this proceedings were already decided by the authorities. Every thing was concluded by the previous orders passed by the Board of Revenue and High Court. So there is no ground to interfere by this court in the present revision petition. The civil court judgment is only regarding the pathway through the 30 cents wherein some alleged improvements of the deceased Seethamma are there. But that area has already been excluded by the assigning authority by reducing the assigned land to 1 acre 28 cents. So on that ground alone the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. WP(C) No.18069/2003 -3- On considering the contentions of both sides and the records, it is deemed appropriate that the case be remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fresh consideration and disposal after examining the contentions both legal and factual, and such local enquiry and site inspection as are found necessary for arriving at a correct decision.” This order therefore, evidences that apart from narrating the case of the respective parties, the 1st respondent has not adverted to the contentions to justify an order i.e. passed. Therefore, this order has been passed without any application of mind and for that reason, the order warrants interference. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P3 and direct that the 1st respondent shall reconsider the revision petition filed by respondents 4 to 6, which led to Ext.P3 order. Orders shall be passed with notice to the parties concerned and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg