IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38095 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.K. KRISHNAN, S/O. KUNJAN CHETTY, PACHADI HOUSE, P.O. KIDANGANAD, SULTHAN BATHERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.R.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -33. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 38095 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2, petitioner approached this Court by filing OP No.17666/93. That original petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment relegating the petitioner to pursue the revisional remedy. In pursuance thereof, petitioner states that he filed Ext.P4 revision before the 2nd respondent. Orders were not passed on the revision. Subsequently, when the petitioner made enquiries, he was issued Ext.P5 stating that on verification of the records, the authorities found that the petitioner had not filed any revision. Petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P6 representation reiterating that revision was filed pursuant to the directions in Ext.P3 judgment. Not only that the revision has not been considered, there is no reply even to Ext.P6. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the 2nd respondent do not in categorical terms say that the petitioner has not filed a revision. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the petitioner that in pursuance to Ext.P3 judgment, he has filed Ext.P4 revision. WPC No. 38095/10 :2 : Therefore, if as a matter of fact, petitioner has filed Ext.P4, irrespective of whether it is misplaced or not, he is entitled to have an order on Ext.P4. In such a situation, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the respondents will verify the records and if the revision filed by the petitioner is traced out, the same will be considered with notice to him. Otherwise, Ext.P4 produced in this writ petition, which is a copy of the revision filed by the petitioner, shall be treated as a revision filed by him in pursuance to Ext.P3 and the same shall be considered with notice to him. In any case, the aforesaid process shall be completed at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp