IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25215 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.A.ABDUL RAHIM,S/O.ABDUL RAUF, CHENNAMPILLY HOUSE,CHERANALLUR P.O., COCHIN-682034. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KANAYANNUR,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25215 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be owner of a property comprised in Survey No.241/2 (R.S.No.601/5) of Charanallur Village. The application filed by the petitioner for assignment of the property was rejected by the District Collector by Ext.P1 order. Ext.P1 was affirmed by a learned Judge of this court in Ext.P2 judgment. In the meanwhile, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue and in Ext.P4 judgment, a Bench of this court directed the appeal to be disposed of, untrammelled by Ext.P2 judgment. The appeal has now been dismissed under Ext.P5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection is essentially based on Ext.P2 judgment. W.P.(C).No.25215 of 2009 :: 2 :: 2. Be that as it may, Ext.P6 revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P1 and P5 and this writ petition seeks reliefs in relation to the same. 3. Since by Ext.P4 judgment a Bench of this court directed to consider the appeal untrammelled by Ext.P2 judgment, that ought to have been done. 4. Since a statutory revision has been preferred, the same shall be considered and disposed of. 5. I heard learned Government Pleader also. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6, keeping in mind the observations of the Bench of this court in Ext.P4, untrammelled by the observations and findings in Ext.P2 judgment, W.P.(C).No.25215 of 2009 :: 3 :: within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The order of status quo passed by the Bench in Ext.P4 shall continue till orders are passed on Ext.P6 by the Government. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge