IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26234 of 2010(D) -------------------------- SR.513/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTALMANNA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAYEDMOHAMMED POOKOYA THANGAL, S/O. LATE SEETHIKOYA THANGAL, KARUVANTHURUTH VALIYATHANGALAKATH H OUSE, PUZHAKATTIRI AMSOM, DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE, PUZHAKKATTIRI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.NARAYANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.26234 of 2010 (D) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 31st day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is one of the legal representatives of a declarant in a proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. His claims were rejected by the Taluk Land Board. That order was confirmed in Ext.P1 order dated 25/08/2009 passed by this Court in CRP No.468/2009. Relying on the provisions of Section 7(e) of the Land Reforms Act, the petitioner filed Review Petition No.925/2009 before this Court. That review petition was also dismissed by this Court by Ext.P2 order dated 07/10/2009. With Exts.P1 & P2, as far as the petitioner is concerned, his claims have been concluded. 2. However, his transferees filed WP(C) No.30704/2009 claiming the benefit of Section 7(e) of the Act and apparently pursuant to the directions in Ext.P3 judgment dated 29/10/2009, the transferees filed Exts.P4 & P5 representations before the Taluk Land Board. The petitioner now contends that until orders are passed on Exts.P4 & P5 representations filed by the transferees, the WP(C) No.26234/2010 -2- possession of the land in question shall not be taken over. The petitioner says that though he made a request to that effect to the Taluk Land Board, there was no response, and that therefore this writ petition has been filed. As already stated, as far as the petitioner is concerned, his entire claim in this matter stands concluded by Exts.P1 & P2 orders. Therefore, irrespective of the pendency of Exts.P4 & P5, even if the land is taken over, the petitioner will not have any legally redressable grievances, and if at all, there can be grievances only for the transferees. Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg