IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35009 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MADHAVI, W/O.MALINGA MANIYANI, RESIDING AT KOLIYADUKAM HOUSE, PERUMBALA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BOARD OF REVENUE (L.R.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD, P.O. KANHANGAD. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KASARAGOD, P.O. KASARAGOD. 5. NARAYANI, W/O.ANANDAN, RESIDING AT KOLIYADUKAM, PERUMBALA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 35009 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the mother and the 5th respondent is her daughter. According to the petitioner, she was in possession of about 2 acres of land in RS No.137/2B of Perumbala Village of Kasargod Taluk. It is stated that she came to know from the proceedings in OS 646/92 before the Munsiff Court, Kasargod filed by the 5th respondent that she obtained assignment of one acre out of the area possessed by the petitioner, which included the area her house is situated. 2. She filed an appeal to the 3rd respondent challenging the assignment order and the 3rd respondent modified the assignment order and out of the area assigned to the 5th respondent, 25 cents were assigned to the petitioner, which also included the area where the house is situated. Petitioner filed a revision to the 2nd respondent and that was dismissed. 3. Against the appellate order, the 5th respondent filed a revision to the 2nd respondent and the revision was also rejected. The 5th respondent challenged the aforesaid orders before this WPC No. 35009/10 :2 : Court by filing OP No.12800/01 and that original petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. 4. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent reconsidered the matter and passed Ext.P2 order remanding the matter to the 4th respondent. Petitioner challenged Ext.P2 order in revision before the 2nd respondent and that was rejected by Ext.P3 order. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 5. Among the several contentions raised by the petitioner impugning the validity of Exts.P2 and P3, the main grievance appears to be that certain observations made in Ext.P2 will prejudice the views of the 4th respondent, who is to implement the directions therein. 6. I have gone through Ext.P2 order. A reading of the order shows that the operative portion requires the Tahsildar to reconsider the matter and to revise the proposal in the manner as indicted in the order. True, there are observations describing the parties greedy and certain other observations also have been made. But those observations are not intended to affect the WPC No. 35009/10 :3 : decision of the 4th respondent. I am sure that such observations will not influence the 4th respondent while carrying out the directions in Ext.P2. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition leaving it open to the 4th respondent to carry out the directions in Ext.P2 order as confirmed in Ext.P3 with reference to the relevant records which are produced by the parties. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp