IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31152 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.NAFEESA, W/O. KHALID, NAFEESA MANZIL, MAIN ROAD, KANNUR-670 011. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.T.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NH DIVISION, KANNUR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY. BY GP SRI.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).31152/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the first respondent under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 appeal before the second respondent under Section 16 of the Act. Along with Ext.P5 appeal, petitioner has filed Ext.P6 stay petition seeking stay of operation of the order impugned in the appeal. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that orders have not been passed on the stay petition as a result of which he apprehends dispossession even after the appeal is filed. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, to consider Ext.P5 appeal and Ext.P6 stay petition and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the first respondent to keep further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 in abeyance till Ext.P5 appeal is heard and disposed of. 2. Section 16 of the Act confers on the petitioner the right to file an appeal challenging Ext.P4. Ext.P4 order was passed W.P.(C).31152/09 2 on 12.10.2009. Ext.P5 appeal is one filed within 30 days therefrom. Therefore, as the petitioner has invoked the appellate remedy available to him, I am of the opinion that the appellate remedy should not be rendered illusory and meaningless by denying an order of stay. 3. In these circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 appeal and pass orders thereon expeditiously and at any rate, within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces or the second respondent otherwise receives a certified copy of this judgment. The second respondent shall afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing orders as directed above and shall, after orders are passed as directed above, forthwith communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. Till such time as orders are passed and communicated to the petitioner and for a period of two weeks thereafter, the operation of Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs