IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23732 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAMES, S/O.VARKEY, PUTHIYAKUNNEL HOUSE, PAINGOTTOOR.P.O., KADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SKARIA SRI.K.J.JOSEMON SRI.JOY JOSEPH (MUNDACKAL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. 6. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. SR GP P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23732 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- PHOTOCOPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.559/1971 OF MUVATTUPUZHA SRO EXECUTED BY HIS GRAND-FATHER CHACKO IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIOER AND HIS BROTHERS EXT.P2- PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYEMENT OF BASIC TAX IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 EXT.P3- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2-476/02 (L.C.4/2003) OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.P4- PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.K.DIS.6591/05/A2 DATED 2.2.06 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P5- PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.L5-14672/02 DATED 16.3.07 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P6- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR (K4)25437/07 DATED 22.1.09 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P7- PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 28.1.02 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAVOOR EXT.P8- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 20.3.09 ALLEGEDLY PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAVOOR EXT.P9- PHOTOCOPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH ALLEGEDLY PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR EXT.P10- PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.09 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C).9879/2009 EXT.P11- PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO.C1-1476/2006 DATED 16.7.2011 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXT.P12- PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO.C1-1476/2006 DATED 27.7.2011 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXT.P13- PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 3.8.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXT.P14- PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.L.C.6/11 DATED 17.8.11 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXT.P15- PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO,C1-1476/2006 DATED 16.8.11 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXT.16- PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF 6% CENTS OF LAND IN SY.NO.829/1/13 WP(C).No. 23732 of 2011 -2- EXT.P16(a)- PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 BY THE PETITIONER'S BROTHER IN RESPECT OF 6 ¾ CENTS OF LAND IN SY.NO.829/1/13 EXT.P17- TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 1974 KLT (SN) 27 (C.NO.78) EXT.P18- TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 1998 (1) KLT 524 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).23732/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act were initiated against the petitioner, resulting in Ext.P3 order of the Tahsildar which was confirmed in Ext.P4 appellate order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and in Ext.P6 revisional order passed by the District Collector. These orders were challenged before this Court in W.P.(C).9879/2009 which was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment, setting aside the impugned orders and directed that the property shall be measured and fresh orders in the matter shall be passed. Accordingly, fresh order has been passed by Ext.P14. 2. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P14 order has been passed without complying with the direction in Ext.P10 judgment. In my view, even if the petitioner has such a case, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in terms of the provisions contained in the Land Conservancy Act. Therefore, in that view of the matter, I do not think it necessary for this Court to enter into the merits of the W.P.(C).23732/11 2 case. However, it is clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to urge his contentions before other appropriate forum. With the above clarification writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs