IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19575 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.MEHARABI, W/O.LATE ABDUL LATHEEF BAITHUL MUFALA, KALLAI PO,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ANEISH RAVINDRA SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO LAND REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19575 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITIONER FILED IN FEBURARY 2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.5.2011 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 27.5.2011 WITH A PETITION TO CONDONE THE DELAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8.6.2011 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).19575/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order rejecting Ext.P3 Revision filed by her under Rule 16(5) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. From the records it is seen that on 31.12.2010, an order was passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed Ext.P1 Revision before the first respondent, within time. That Revision was rejected by Ext.P2 order dated 18.5.2011 stating that the Revision was filed under Section 16(4) and that it ought to have been filed under Section 16(5) of the Act. On receipt of Ext.P2 communication, on 27.5.2011, petitioner filed Ext.P3 Revision, invoking Section 16(5) of the Act. But, by Ext.P4 letter dated 8.6.2011 Ext.P3 Revision has been rejected on the ground that it is time barred. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed. 2. First of all, even if it is assumed that the provision of law was wrongly quoted in Ext.P1, that did not warrant rejection of the Revision. Therefore the very rejection of Ext.P1, itself was W.P.(C).19575/11 2 erroneous. In any case, since the petitioner had filed Ext.P3 Revision immediately on receipt of Ext.P2, I am satisfied that the said Revision ought to have been entertained by the first respondent and the dispute ought to have been considered on merits. 3. In the above view of the matter, I quash Ext.P4 passed by the first respondent rejecting Ext.P3 Revision and direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition, Ext.P3 Revision filed by the petitioner will be entertained and the dispute will be considered on merits, in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs