IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11695 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ST.THOMAS JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JACOB ERALIL, AGED 55 YEARS, SON OF ABRAHAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682030. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PARAVUR TALUK, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683513. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NORTH PARAVUR VILLAGE OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683513. BY SR. GP SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).11695/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P7 whereby the revision petition filed against Ext.P5 (which in turn was passed pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment rendered by this Court) was rejected stating that the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the concerned RDO and not the Government. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on receipt of Ext.P7, Ext.P8 petition has been preferred on 22.12.2010 pointing out all the relevant aspects and contending that the course pursued by the Government in Ext.P7 is not correct. 3. Heard the learned Government as well, who submits with reference to the relevant provisions of law that the petitioner, if at all aggrieved of Ext.P5, has to approach the Commissioner for Land Revenue as provided under the relevant statute (since the Board of Revenue as mentioned in the provision is no more in existence). If any such proceedings is filed, the same could be considered and W.P.(C).11695/11 2 finalized in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. The writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to file revision petition before the Land Revenue Commissioner against Ext.P7, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader. If the same is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be caused to be considered and finalized in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, passing appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of such proceedings. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition along with the revision petition as aforesaid. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs