IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9800 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- NARAYANANKUTTY, AGED 52, S/O.SANKARAN EZHUTHACHAN, OZHUKATHODIYIL, MANNANNOOR P.O., VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. SANTHEEP ANKARATH MR. SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM - 679101. 3. BHAGEERATHY, W/O.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, THEKKEPAPPULLY HOUSE, MANNANNOOR P.O. - 679523, VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 9800 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 29th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved of Ext. P1 order passed by the concerned RDO, the petitioner approached the first respondent by filing appeal, which was considered and Ext. P2 order was passed on 16.07.2010. Contending that the petitioner could not appear when the matter was heard on 07.07.2010 as he was allegedly laid up on that day despite receipt of notice, the petitioner preferred a Review Petition before the first respondent which was considered and Ext. P4 order dated 03.09.2010 was passed dismissing Ext. P3 Review Petition, also pointing out that if at all the petitioner was aggrieved of Ext.P2 , the remedy was by way of Revision Petition to be preferred before the Government. The petitioner is before this Court challenging Exts. P2 and P4 and to have it re-considered by the first respondent. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader, who submits W.P.(C) No. 9800 OF 2011 2 with reference to the relevant provisions of law and materials on record that the factum of receipt of notice by the petitioner in appeal is admitted. So also is the position with regard to the 'absence' on the date of hearing held on 07.07.2010 and that the petitioner is having an effective alternative remedy by way of Revision before the Government as pointed out by the first respondent in Ext.P4 In the said circumstance, this Court finds that no interference is warranted. The petitioner is relegated to avail the alternative remedy by way of Revision, by approaching the Government. Reserving such rights and liberties, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk