IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 21602 of 2006(V) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ A. ABDUL RASHEED, SECRETARY, REP. BY KARBALA TRUST (REG.NO.2452/64), KARBALA TRUST OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKEVILA. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21602/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1423/2000. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =================== W.P.(C) NO.21602 OF 2006 V =========================== Dated this the 12 th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner represents a trust, which has submitted Ext.P1 application for transfer of registry of puramboke land held by them. Acting upon Ext.P1, the land was assigned to the petitioner and by the same order, part of the land was assigned to yet another organisation. The order of assignment was challenged before this Court in OP No.1557/92. A learned Single Judge allowed the original petition quashing the order of assignment in its totality. Petitioner filed WA 1423/2000 and the appeal was allowed by Ext.P2 judgment. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that in the meanwhile, though the petitioner continued to be in physical possession of the land, symbolic possession was taken and therefore seeking restoration and also for grant of patta, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application. WPC 21602/06 :2 : According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this application is pending consideration of the 1st respondent without any orders passed thereon. It is in this background this writ petition has been filed in this court. 3. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondents also, it is evident that orders have not been passed on Ext.P3 application. However, the counter affidavit highlights the requirement of a portion of the land for future road development purposes. 3. In view of all these, I feel that this matter requires to be dealt with by the 1st respondent, who should consider all aspects of the matter and pass orders on Ext.P3. This the 1st respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp