IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 23934 of 2003(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- E.M.KARUNAN, `ANANTHAPURI', VIYYUR AMSOM, VIYYUR VILLAGE, P.O. KOLLAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY, SMT.S.LAKSHMY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.23934/2003-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ASSIGNMENT OF LAND ON REGISTRY IN THE STANDARD FORM TO THE R.1. UNDER THE L.A. ACT DTD. 10/09/93. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DTD. 13/01/1994. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 25805/2002 DTD. 11/09/2002. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DTD. 20/05/2003. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.23934/2003-Y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P4 communication whereby an application for assignment submitted before the Revenue Divisional Officer was rejected mainly stating that the said application is not in tune with G.O. (P). No.566/95/Ord.D.M. for assignment of land coming within the Municipality and Corporation areas passed in 1995. 2. What is contended is that the petitioner's application will have to be considered in the light of the then existing Rules. There is nothing to show that a final decision has been taken under the erstwhile Rules and the Revenue Divisional Officer has directed the petitioner to submit an application before the District Collector. It cannot be said that the view taken in Ext.P4 is incorrect. Therefore, it is upto the petitioner to cure the defects and submit a proper application before the competent authority, namely, the second respondent herein. If such an application is filed, appropriate orders will be passed in accordance W.P.(C). No.23934/2003 -:2:- with the relevant Rules. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms