IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 28590 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.CHARADAN NAIR, RESIDING AT EDAPANI HOUSE, BEDADKA VILLAGE AND POST, (VIA) CHENGALA, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT-671541. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM-695033. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671315. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD-671121. 5. VISHALAKSHI, W/O.P.GANGADHARAN NAIR, MUTHANADUKHAM HOUSE, BEDADKA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT-671541. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28590/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT ORDER IN LA NO.3/00 BEDAADKA VILLAGE IN THE NAME OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.1.2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/09/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28590 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 order of assignment in favour of the 5th respondent was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the 3rd respondent and that appeal was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 revision before the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent rejected the revision by Ext.P3 order. It is challenging Exts.P1 to P3, the writ petition is filed. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his right of access to the public road was through the assigned land and that on account of the assignment such a right is lost. 3. In my view, petitioner has no reason for such a grievance for the reason that the right of access, if any, of the petitioner has been protected in the order of assignment itself. This reservation in the order of assignment is reiterated in Ext.P3 order of the 2nd respondent in the following words; “I see no reason to disbelieve the Revenue Divisional Officer's report. In any case one of the conditions of assignment is that the assignee shall respect all established rights of way and easement rights. This should prevent inconvenience, if any, to the public if the WPC No. 28590/11 :2 : said land was being used as an access way to the Temple at all. Hence the appeal is dismissed.” Therefore, the grievance is misconceived and the writ petition is therefore rejected. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp