IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 31413 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.P.RAJAN, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, SAKTHI NILAYAM, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTYTA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR. 4. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, VALIYAZHIKATH PUTHEN VEEDU MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE KUNNATHOOT TALUK ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP M0HAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31413/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: SKETCH AND MAHAZAR ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR TALUK. EXT.P2: ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT. EXT.P3: PATTA EXT.P4: APPEAL FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.4. EXT.P5: ORDER OF R2 ON APPEAL. EXT.P6: REVISION FILED BEFORE R1. EXT.P7: NOTICE OF HEARING REVISION. EXT.P8: ORDER IN REVISION PETITION BY R1 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31413 OF 2008 (M) ===================== Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8, revisional order passed by the 1st respondent exercising the powers under Rule 21(8) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. 2. Pleadings in the case show that late Kunjukrishna Pillai, uncle of the petitioner and the 4th respondent, who are bothers, had title over 91 cents of land in Sy.No.572/1 of Sasthamcotta Village. It is stated that since 1967 Sri.Pillai was in possession of adjacent puramboke land having an extent of 14.5 cents. According to the petitioner, after the expiry of Sri.Pillai, on an application made, after enquiry as contemplated under the Rules, by Ext.P2 order dated 25/1/83, the aforesaid 14.5 cents of land was assigned to him. He claims to have been in possession of the land since then. 3. However, the 4th respondent, his younger brother filed Ext.P4 appeal dated 9/12/2004 before the 2nd respondent against Ext.P2 order dated 25/1/83. Irrespective of the delay, the appellate authority considered the appeal on merits and the WPC 31413/08 :2 : appeal was rejected by Ext.P5 order dated 15/3/2006. The 4th respondent pursued the matter by filing Ext.P6 revision under Rule 21(8) of the Rules before the 1st respondent. The revision was considered with notice to the parties and by Ext.P8 order, revision was allowed. A reading of the order shows that after noticing the contentions, the finding arrived at by the 1st respondent is that “Road puramboke cannot be assigned. Also the land is not situated as to confer any beneficial enjoyment”. Accordingly assignment was cancelled and the land was ordered to be retained as puramboke. 4. Although several contentions have been raised by the petitioner on the merits of the controversy, I do not think it necessary for this Court to examine the correctness of these contentions atleast at this stage. This is for the reason that a reading of Ext.P8, the revisional order rendered by the 1st respondent, shows that the 1st respondent has not adverted to any of the contentions raised by either of the parties, but has passed a laconic order that road puramboke cannot be assigned and that the land is not situated as to confer any beneficial enjoyment. WPC 31413/08 :3 : 5. Counsel for the 4th respondent contended that the petitioner was ineligible for assignment under Rules 4 and 8 of the rules. Having regard to the fact that I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P8 on the ground of non application of mind, in my view, the eligibility or otherwise of the petitioner for assignment of land in terms of the provisions contained in the Land Assignment Rules is a matter for the 1st respondent to consider when the revision is reconsidered. 6. Therefore, leaving open the contentions raised by both sides, I set aside Ext.P8 and direct that the 1st respondent shall reconsider Ext.P6 revision filed by the 4th respondent against Ext.P5 order rejecting the appeal filed by him. This the 1st respondent shall do with notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp