IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1885 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.K. BABU, S/O. KUNJU, AGED 37 YEARS, CHERUVAZHATHOTTAM HOUSE, ANAVIRATTI VILLAGE, KURUSSUPARA DESOM, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE TAHSILDAR, UDANBAN CHILLA TALUK, UDUNBANCHOLA. GOVT. PLEADER SRI, M.P. SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1885 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is primarily against Ext.P7, a notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before the respondent on the allegation that the property held by him, as per Ext.P1 title deed is liable to be taken back. The reason stated for initiating such proceedings is that the land was allotted in 1993, with restriction on transfer. According to the respondent, Exts. P1, P4 & P5 subsequent transfers are in violation of the conditions of allotment itself. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submit that in response to Ext.P7, the petitioner appeared before the respondent and gave a statement and that the same has been recorded. It is stated that since at that stage, the writ petition was filed, no formal order has been passed. It is also pointed out that once orders are passed by the respondent, the statutory remedies are also available to the petitioner. 3. From the facts as noticed above, it is evident that final order in pursuance to Ext.P7 has not been passed. In view of the WP(C) No.1885/2009 -2- above, I dispose of the writ petition holding that once final orders are passed by the respondent, it will be open to the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies that are available. I make it clear that I have not pronounced on the correctness of the respective contentions of the parties. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg