IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2978 of 2011(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAJESWARAN, S/O. PARANTHAN KESAVAN, HOUSE NO.XIII/326 OF ENGANDIYOOR PANCHAYATH, ENGANDIYOOR-680 616, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR.680 001 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.PIN- 680 001 3. TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 001 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ENGANDIYOOR VILLAGE, ENGANDIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 616 5. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ENGANDIYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 616 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001 R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No. 2978 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of 8 cents of property covered by Exts. P1 and P1(a). He was issued Ext.P2 notice alleging violation of the provisions contained in Act 28 of 2008. Those proceedings culminated in Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector in which, he was found to have violated the provisions of the said Act. Thereafter, in exercise of his powers under Section 13 of the Act, petitioner was ordered to restore the NANJA land which he allegedly converted into its original position. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 revision before the Government, the 6th respondent. It is stated that during the pendency of the revision, coercive action based on Ext.P4 is likely to be taken. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition is filed. 3. Ext.P5 revision filed by the petitioner is statutory. Therefore it is premature to implement Ext.P4 during the pendency of the said revision. W.P (C) No. 2978 of 2011 2 4. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 6th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 revision filed by the petitioner. This shall be done with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. 5. It is directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 will be kept in abeyance 6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondents 1, 5 and 6 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma