IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4517 of 2010(S) PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. GEORGE VARGHESE, MOLASSERIL, VAIKKARA P.O., ODAKKALI, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. MADHU P.V., PONNATHUMKUDY VEEDU, RAYAMANGALAM P.O., RAYAMANGALAM, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. M.V.POULOSE, MATTATHIL, RAYAMANGALAM P.O., NELLIMOLAM, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. OUSEPH K.P., KALLIKKADAN, RAYAMANGALAM P.O., RAYAMANGALAM. 5. PAILY POULOSE, ARACKAL, VAIKKARA P.O., ODAKKALI, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) SRI.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, KUNNATHUNAD. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN, Ag. C.J. & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 4517 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT Raman, Ag. CJ. There are two prayers in this writ petition. One is to quash Ext.P19 letter issued by the third respondent Principal Secretary to Government to all District Collectors and Chairmen, Taluk Land Board, to keep the operation of Section 7E as envisaged in the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 2005 (Act 21/06) in abeyance until further orders. A learned Judge of this Court in Institute of Brothers of St. Gabriel v. State of Kerala (2008(4) KLT 631) has held that as long as Section 7E exists in the statute book, its provisions cannot be directed to be kept in abeyance by a Circular. In view of that Ext.P19 is no longer in existence. Accordingly, it is declared so. 2. The second prayer is to direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of the review petitions pending before him. Even though some of the acknowledgments are produced, the Government Pleader has not verified the correctness of the same as to whether the review petitions are still pending consideration. However, it is not necessary to adjourn this writ petition for that purpose. In case the review petitions are still pending, as alleged, before the first respondent, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously, at any WP(C) 4517/2010 :2: rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. Knc/-