IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19607 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. PUTHIYA NALAKATH ISMALUKUTTY @ KUNHIBAVA, S/O. BAKKUTTY, PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. PUTHIYA NALAKATH BIYYUMMA, D/O. MOHAMMED, PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-690001. 2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-690001. 3. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-690001. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-688081. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D.SECTION, PARAPPANANGADI, POST PARAPPANANGADI, PIN-676 303. *ADDL.R6. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 690001. (*ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.12437/2011 DATED 01/08/2011) GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.P.MOHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.19607/11 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 20.5.1992. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.6.97 IN OP NO.9895/1007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED NIL PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 31.12.97 PASSED BY THE RDO, TIRUR. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE BOARD OF REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM DT 20.1.1998. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT 20.1.98 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.10.2002 IN OP NO.1098/98. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2010 IN WPC NO.32474/2010. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 6.7.11 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BFORE THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM DATED 20.7.11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19607 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners say that they are in possession of 6 cents of Government puramboke land situated in RS Nos.26 and 89/2 of Neduva amsom. According to the petitioners, they applied for assignment of the land. An enquiry was conducted and Ext.P1 report was submitted by the Village Officer. However, the application was finally rejected by Ext.P3 order. Appeals filed were also rejected and finally a revision filed before the Land Revenue Commissioner also met with rejection as per Ext.P9. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. In Ext.P9, after referring to the materials available, the Land Revenue Commissioner has stated thus:- From the above, it is clear that the said land do not form part of lands which are available for assignment. Moreover the petitioner has not proved that the falls under the category of people who are eligible for assignment even if the lands are available for assignment, he cannot take the plea that he had purchased the land from one person Kalyani who was eligible for land assignment. The petitioner's circumstances and that of Kalyani are different. Therefore I am inclined to agree with the District Collector, Malappuram contention that the land is not available for assignment and it is needed WPC No. 19607/11 :2 : for a very important public purpose, that is widening of Road and that the petitioner is not eligible for assignment of the land. Hence the appeal is dismissed. 3. Subsequently, petitioners filed Ext.P11 a revision before the Government of Kerala invoking its powers under Rule 21(9) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. Orders have not been passed on Ext.P11. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 4. Although the petitioners have raised several contentions on the merits of their case, in the light of the aforesaid finding of the Land Revenue Commissioner, which is not contradicted by the petitioners and having regard to the pendency of Ext.P11 revision, I do not think it necessary for this Court to enter into any finding. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that if Ext.P11 has been received and is pending, the 1st respondent will deal with the same in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp