IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26177 of 2008(N) PETITIONERS: 1. SIMI SURENDRAN, W/O. SURENDRAN, AGED 38 YEARS, CHALIL HOUSE, KADAYIRIPPU P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.K. RAJAN, S/O. P.K. KARUNAKARAN, VALANCHERIL HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE SRI.ROY THOMAS RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANAHTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PALAKKAD. 3. TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DIST. 4. E.V. THOMAS, EDATHOTTIL HOUSE, MANAPADAM, PUTHUKODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 5. SMT. CHINNAMMA THOMAS, W/O. E.V. THOMAS, DO. DO. 6. SAJI THOMAS, S/O. E.V. THOMAS, DO. DO. 7. JOBIN THOMAS, S/O. E.V. THOMAS, DO. DO. 8. SMT. ANSAMMA SAJI, W/O. SAJI THOMAS, DO. DO. 9. P.N. PUSHPPARAJAN, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, POOLACKAL HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST. 10. SMT. LEELA PUSHPPARAJOAN, W/O. PUSHPPARAJAN, DO. DO. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 26177 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Exts.P. 10 and P11 orders passed by the Tahsildar, Alathur Taluk, the 3rd respondent herein, on two grounds. The first is that the Tahsildar does not have jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act to pass the impugned orders. The second is that the Tahsildar has passed orders under Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, for which he does not have powers. Under Section 44, the District Collector or the authorised officer can exercise powers under Section 44. The petitioner has not averred in the writ petition that the 3rd respondent is not the authorised officer. I am also not satisfied that the impugned orders have been issued under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 although the word 'benami' is used therein. From a reading of the impugned orders, it is abundantly clear that the same have been passed under Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act. As such, I am not prima facie satisfied that the orders have been passed without jurisdiction. That being so, I am inclined to relegate the petitioner to the statutory remedy by way of revision before the Government under Section 83 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders in revision before the Government under Section 83, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.