IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35435 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.R. PRASAD, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING NEAR GHSS PARAPPA, PARAPPA P.O., PARAPPA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, HOSDURG. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35435 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner's apprehension is that during the pendency of Ext.P4 appeal filed by him, he is likely to be evicted, in pursuance to the order against which Ext.P4 appeal is filed. 2. However, I notice that, with this very grievance, he approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.19731/07, which was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment, directing disposal of the appeal and not to evict the petitioner in pursuance to the order impugned before the appellate authority. 3. In my view, so long as Ext.P4 appeal remains pending, the respondents are bound by the directions in Ext.P8 judgment. If that be so, the petitioner has no reason to apprehend eviction. Therefore, I do not find any reason to issue any further direction in this matter. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. ami/