IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15656 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.SREEJA, W/O.C.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 39 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT NIMISHA NIVAS, ARALAM P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THALLSSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ARALAM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 15656 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioner challenges the same on the grounds that the Revenue Divisional Officer does not have jurisdiction to decide the matter and that the finding in Ext.P2 on facts is also wrong. I am of opinion that insofar as Section 28 of the Act provides for a remedy by way of revision to the Government, the petitioner has to invoke that remedy first taking up all her contentions. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a revision under Section 28, this writ petition is dismissed. However, to enable the petitioner to file a revision and seek interim orders thereon, I direct that implementation of Ext.P2 order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2