IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 13020 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- V.X. ALBIN, VALIATHARA, CHINNAKKANAL, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA. 4. SMT.ANTHONIAMMAL, WIFE OF RAMER, SURIANELLY COLONY, CHINNAKKANAL P.O. BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.D. ANILKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13020 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The writ petitioner challenges Ext.P16 and seeks that this Court hold that Ext.P16 is without authority. Ext.P16 is a notice issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why Patta should not be cancelled. According to the petitioner he is the owner of 2 Acres and 80 cents of land in Survey No.20/1 of Chinnakanal Village. It is covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The sale deed is of the year 2006. The property belonged to the 4th respondent who had been assigned the same by Exts.P2 to P9 proceedings. Ext.P14 notice was issued to the 4th respondent calling for a hearing on a complaint against Ext.P9 Patta issued to the 4th respondent. Ext.P10 order was passed in a writ petition filed by the 4th respondent and another and pursuant to the same Ext.P11 order was passed by the District Collector. Therein it is ordered that the petitioners therein are entitled to possess and hold the property which is demarcated by the Surveyor. It is thereafter the petitioner again approached this Court and Ext.P15 is the judgment. WPC No. 13020 OF 2008 2 2. The court by Ext.P15 took the view that notice to be issued to the petitioner. Ext.P16 is the notice issued by the 3rd respondent asking the petitioner to show cause why Ext.P9 Patta should not be cancelled. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.Ramakrishnan and the learned Government Pleader, Sri.D.Anilkumar. 4. The complaint of the petitioner is that by Ext.P11 order, the District Collector, who is the superior authority to the Tahsildar, has found that the petitioner and predecessor in interest had title over the property and it may not be open to the Tahsildar to issue Ext.P16. He submits that by virtue of Ext.P11, P16 is illegal. 5. Learned Government Pleader points out that the petitioner approached this Court and obtained Ext.P15 judgment by which notice was issued to the petitioner also and having regard to the petitioner's contention and Ext.P15, the plea is barred. Counsel for the submits that the time to submit reply under Ext.P16 has expired. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner will be served with a fresh notice. WPC No. 13020 OF 2008 3 6. I would think that Ext.P16 is only a notice and I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P16. It is made clear that the petitioner can raise all contentions legally available to him. The Writ Petition is disposed of. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 13020 OF 2008 4 WPC No. 13020 OF 2008 5