IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13712 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.MADHUSOODHANAN,AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN ACHARI,KAMALA BHAVAN, VELLAR,KOVALAM,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY IT'S SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TAHASILDAR,TRIVANDRUM. 4. SECRETARY, VENGANOOR PANCHAYATH, TRIVANDRUM. 5. SRI.NIKITHAN,NELLIVILAVEEDE, VELLAR,KOVALAM,TRIVANDRUM. 6. SRI.SIVARAJAN NAIR, MADATHIL NADA,MENILAM, THIRUVALLOM P.O.,TRIVANDRUM. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).13712/2009 ....................... Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Thomas Abraham and learned Government Pleader, Mr.P.N.Santhosh. In the nature of the order proposed to be passed, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to respondents 4 to 6. 2. Petitioner sought for an assignment of 3.25 cents of land stated to be adjacent to his registered property, on the ground that the same is required for beneficial enjoyment of his property. The application was rejected by the Tahsildar under Ext.P9 and the same was affirmed by the RDO under Ext.P11. Tahsildar passed the order under Rule 21(1) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. Petitioner then filed Ext.P12 Revision before the Government which was returned under Ext.P13 order and the same reads as follows:- W.P.(C).13712/2009 2 “Inviting attention to the reference cited, I am directed to inform you to file an appeal petition before the District Collector concerned against the orders of the RDO., as envisaged in the relevant provisions of the KLA Rules, 1964.” 3. Ext.P13 has been challenged in this writ petition. 4. The stand taken by the Government in Ext.P13 seems to be erroneous going by a reading of Rule 21 of the Rules. Firstly, the Revision was preferred against the appellate order passed by the RDO. In such circumstances, a second appeal will not lie before the District Collector, on account of the prohibition under Rule 21. Secondly, the powers of revision available with the Government under Rule 21 does not seem to be restricted to original orders as such. W.P.(C).13712/2009 3 5. For all these reasons Ext.P13 is set aside. Government is directed to take on file Ext.P12 Revision and orders may be passed thereon, after notice to all parties, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open to the petitioner to move the Government for appropriate interim orders. Orders shall be passed on the stay petition within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs