IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2933 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOSPEL FOR ASIA, MANJADI, THIRUVALLA, MANAGING TRUSTEE DR.DANIEL JOHNSON, REP. THROUGH HIS P/A. HOLDER JACOB POTHEN ITS GENERAL ADMINISTRATOR, LFA, HEAD QUARTERS, MANJADI THIRUVALLA BY ADV. SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 4. TAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY. G.P. SHRI.M.P.SRIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.2933 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to have purchased a rubber plantation as per sale deed No.2329/2005. According to the petitioner, the Taluk Land Board had in ceiling proceedings held that the vendor of the property did not have any excess land in Kottayam District, wherein the property in question lies. Now the Tahsildar, Kanjirappally has issued Ext.P7 notice to the petitioner to show cause why the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plantation in question shall not be cancelled, pursuant to which Ext.P8 order has been issued by the Tahsildar cancelling the mutation in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the reasons stated in Ext.P8 for cancelling the mutation effected in the petitioner's favour are clearly unsustainable. Against Ext.P8 order the petitioner filed Ext.P9 appeal along with a stay petition before the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer as provided under the Transfer of Registry Rules. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 appeal expeditiously and not to take any action in respect of the property on the basis of the order appealed against in Ext.P9. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. w.p.c.2933/09 2 3. I am of opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Revenue Divisional Officer should take a decision on Ext.P9 expeditiously. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 3rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Till final orders are so passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, no coercive proceedings on the basis of the order appealed against Ext.P9 shall be taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer. If the petitioner seeks opportunity to adduce evidence, the petitioner shall be permitted to do so. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge