IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14822 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SARASWATHY,W/O.MURALI,MAMBRA HOUSE, PADIYOOR,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680122. BY ADV. MR. P.B.SAHASRANAMAN MR. T.S.HARIKUMAR MR. K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,MUSEUM JUNCTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION,THRISSUR-680630. 3. SIVADAS,S/O.AKLLIPARAMBIL VELUKUTTY, PADIYOOR VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR-680122. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 14822 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 2nd June , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the non finalization of the proceedings pursuant to the remand ordered by the first respondent, that too after the several rounds of litigations. 2. The sequence of events is as follows : The land situated near the property of the petitioner, stated as belonging to the 3rd respondent was reclaimed illegally. The petitioner filed Ext. P1 complaint before the second respondent on 01.02.2007, which was finalized by the said respondent, as per Ext. P3 order dated 17.09.2008, granting necessary relief. Being aggrieved of the said order, the 3rd respondent took up the matter in appeal before the first respondent, who passed Ext. P4 order dated 13.11.09 remanding the matter for fresh consideration. Pursuant to the said order, the issue was reconsidered by the second respondent, who passed Ext. P5 order on 25.05.10, which was further challenged by the 3rd respondent, leading to Ext. P6 order passed by the first respondent on 14.01.2011 remanding the matter again. The grievance of the petitioner is that, W.P. (C) No. 14822 of 2011 : 2 : the proceedings are still to be finalized by the second respondent, which hence is sought to be interfered by this Court. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief now pressed before this Court is to have the proceeding finalized by the second respondent within a reasonable time. 4. Considering the limited nature of relief pressed for, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. The second respondent is directed to pass final orders, pursuant to Ext. P6 remand ordered by the first respondent, in accordance with law, after hearing both the sides, which shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petition shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd