IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33419 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THOMAS THOMMI,AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.LATE V.V.THOMAS VETTUTHOTTUNKAL HOUSE, D.NO.VII/992,ATHANI,KAKKANAD VILLAGE,NOW RESIDING AT 'VETTUTHOTTUNKAL'HOUSE,MANJUMMEL.P.O, UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DISTRICT SURVEY OFFICE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 011 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.33419/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SAID PATTA DATED 23/12/1985 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR IN PROCEEDINGS NO.B6/LA/649/85 EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,THRIKKAKARA(S)VILLAGE DATED 20/12/85. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KAKKANAD,DATED 13/10/05 EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 17/12/85 EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY,DATED 07/09/2011 EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT IN DSA NO.139/05. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33419 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P6, which according to the petitioner was issued as early as in 2005, but was not communicated to him. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that by Ext.P6, the land which was assigned to him as per Ext.P1 is now again reconverted as puramboke and that too without notice to him. Though it is a fact that the land in question was assigned to the petitioner as per Ext.P1, still from Ext.P6, it is disclosed that the assignment was subsequently cancelled by the respondent. 3. Even as on date, the order cancelling the assignment is not under challenge. In such circumstances, Ext.P6 is only the consequential action and what the petitioner ought to challenge is the order cancelling the assignment. Therefore this writ petition is rejected. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp