IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19067 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED 51, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, THENGUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, VALLIKODE VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESH KUMAR, SRI.R.RANJITH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLIKODE VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.A. ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19067/2010-G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/08/2008 IN WP(C) NO. 1930/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/03/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/05/2010 PASSED BY TAHASILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 19067 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of the Thahsildar, Kozhencherry Taluk passed under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, directing the petitioner to pay the value of river sand allegedly mined by the petitioner illegally from the Achancovil river together with royalty and fine. When the court asked the counsel for the petitioner as to why he cannot file appeal against Ext.P3 order as provided under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, the counsel for the petitioner submits that notice was issued by the District collector for a hearing and the petitioner was heard by the District collector also and therefore the appeal before the District Collector would be a futile exercise. The learned Government Pleader points out that the District Collector has passed an order dated 23.3.2010 in accordance with which only Ext.P3 order has been passed by the Thahsildar. But the petitioner submits that petitioner has not been served with that order dated 23.3.2010. Having heard both sides, I am of the opinion that in the peculiar circumstances of the case the petitioner should be given W.P.(C).No. 19067 of 2010 2 an opportunity to file a revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner against the orders of the District Collector as well as that of the Thahsildar. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with following directions:- If the petitioner files a revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner against Ext.P3 as well as the order of the District Collector dated 23.3.2010 shown as reference number (4) in Ext.P3, the Land Revenue Commissioner shall consider the same as a revision filed against the order of the District Collector validly and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Petitioner shall file the revision within one month. Petitioner may file a petition for stay also along with the revision petition. The stay petition shall be considered and orders passed thereon within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the stay petition. Till orders are passed on the stay petition, further coercive proceedings for recovery of the amounts covered by Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE mns W.P.(C).No. 19067 of 2010 3 mns