IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7901 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANARU NARAYANARU THOTTATHIL PUTHENMADOM, NHETTOOR, KULANADA. 2. ARYA DEVI, D/O.NARAYANARU NARAYANARU THOTTATHIL PUTHENMADOM, NHETTOOR, KULANADA. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SMT.V.J.SAFEENA SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SMT.S.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.7901 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT The grievance in this writ petition is regarding the non-inclusion of certain properties which are otherwise eligible to be exempted in favour of the petitioners, who were minors at the point of time when proceedings were finalised under the Kerala Land Reforms Act . According to the petitioner, it was without considering their claims that the Taluk Land Board held against them. It is stated that in Ext.P3 judgment rendered by this court in WP(c). No.14309/06 this court has left open the claim of the petitioners to be urged by filing an application under the Land Reforms Act. It is stated that in pursuance to Ext.P3 judgment the petitioners have filed Ext.P4 application under Section 85(8) of the Land Reforms Act before the 2nd respondent. Orders have not been passed on Ext.P4. WP(c).No.7901/09 /2/ Therefore this writ petition has been filed. 2. Government Pleader on instruction disputes the very maintainability of Ext.P4. 3. In my view, since Ext.P4 is pending consideration of the 2nd respondent, it is up to that authority to consider all contentions including the maintainability of Ext.P4. Taking into account the pendency of Ext.P4, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the second respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 with notice to the parties as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.7901/09 /2/