IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29101 of 2009(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ANIL MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 34 YEARS RESIDING AT EZHARAKATH KULAMAVU PO, MUTHIJURANDAYAR,THODUPUZHA , IDUKKI. BY ADV. MR.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER OFFICE OF THE D.F.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. THE THAHASILDAR, THODUPOUZHA THALUK, IDUKKI. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29101 of 2009 - G ---------------------------------------- Dated 15th October, 2009 Judgment The petitioner applied for assignment of a parcel of land, two acres in extent, under the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Lands Prior to 1.1.1977) Special Rules, 1993, by submitting Ext.P4 application dated 19.10.2004. While the said application was pending, steps were taken to evict him. Thereupon, he filed W.P.(C) No.3986 of 2005 in this Court. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 22.10.2008, a learned single Judge of this Court directed the District Collector, Idukki to take appropriate action on the petitioner's application for assignment. The District Collector thereafter considered the petitioner's application and passed Ext.P8 order rejecting his request on the ground that his name does not figure in the joint verification list of occupants who were in occupation of land prior to 1.1.1977. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this writ petition. W.P.(C) No.29101/2009 2 2. Under rule 17 (9) of the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Land Prior to 1.1.1977) Special Rules, 1993, the Board of Revenue is competent to revise, cancel or alter, on its own motion or otherwise, any decision made by the District Collector. The period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of revisional power is two years. In the instant case, the impugned order was passed on 23.1.2009. Therefore, the period of limitation has not expired. In my opinion, since the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of a revision before the Board of Revenue whose powers are now being exercised by the Land Revenue Commissioner, he should invoke the said remedy instead of seeking the intervention of this Court. I accordingly dismiss this writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Land Revenue Commissioner in revision under rule 17 (a) of the aforesaid Rules. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa