IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7430 of 2011(C) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- K.J.POULOSE KANNUMKADUKKAYIL, EDAKKATTUVAYAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM - 682 030. 3. THE TAHSILDAR , KANAYANNUR TALUK - 682 030. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER EDAKKATTUVAYAL VILLAGE - 682 313. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 7430 OF 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 JUDGMENT The prayers of the petitioner in the writ petition are as follows. “i)issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order compelling the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation on the merits in the light of Ext.P2 report after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court; ii) declare that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be assigned the puramboke land comprised in Resurvey No.31/15 in Block No.26 of Edakattuvayal Village in Kanayannur Taluk which is in his uninterrupted possession without insisting for its market value”. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course by which the grievance of the petitioner is sought to be attended or acted upon, as revealed from Ext.P5 issued by the third respondent is not correct or proper and the petitioner has preferred Ext.P1 representation before the second respondent for the redressal of the grievance, which is sought to be acted upon. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. In view wpc 7430/2011 2 of the limited nature of the relief now pressed before this Court, there is no necessity to go into the merits of the case but for directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P1 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Same is ordered accordingly making it clear that final orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE lgk