IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26283 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.K. THANKAPPAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE KOCHOLA, EDACHERIMATTAM, IRUMBAYAM, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SMT.RAJESWARI KRISHNAN SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN SRI.ANIYANKUNJU VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002. 3. TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM PIN-686 141. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN-686 501 BY ADV.SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26283 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE, DTD. 19.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH MAHASSER, DTD. 19-08-2008 EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 24-02-2011 UNDER SEC.12 OF LAND CONSERVATION ACT. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C5-5538/2008, DTD. 21-05-2011. OF THIRD RESPONDENT EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E2-1882/05 DTD. 28.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for assigning the property has been turned down ; stating that the petitioner is already assigned 11 cents of land ; besides another extent of 52 cents, assigned in favour of the mother of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that, there is no rhyme or reason for the findings arrived at in Ext.P6 and that, as per Ext.P4 proceedings of the Additional Tahasildar, Vaikom, the property concerned is admittedly in possession of the petitioner for more than 35 years and that there are yielding trees in the said property. This being the position, the impugned order which is having no legal basis is liable to be quashed by this Court, submits the learned counsel. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader, who submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner as 2 W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2011 to the scope of the relevant provisions of law is quite wrong and misconceived. It is stated that there is no merit as well. Further, the petitioner is having an effective alternative remedy by approaching the Commissioner for Land Revenue, if aggrieved of Ext.P6 order. 3. After hearing both the sides, this Court does not find it necessary to look into the merits of the case, for the reason that there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner before the Commissioner for Land Revenue. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4, P5 and P6 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of '6 weeks'. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ami/