IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33831 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------- M.V.JOHN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, MANNIL HOUSE, THUMPAMON THAZHAM MURI, MEZHUVELI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-01. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA-03. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-03. 4. THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-01. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 33831 of 2010 D ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Issue raised by the petitioner is in relation to one cent of puramboke land, which is a part of 37 cents situated in Old Survey No.284/7A of Mezhuveli village. According to him, due to a mistake in the survey, it is now classified as puramboke. The issue is now pending in revision before the first respondent. Ext.P2 is a copy of the revision. 2. It is stated that in the meanwhile, Ext.P4 notice has been issued under the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act and the petitioner apprehends that coercive action would be taken based on Ext.P4 before Ext.P2 revision is decided. 3. Petitioner submits that the outcome of Ext.P2 revision will affect Ext.P4 and, therefore, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 should be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on Ext.P2. It is with this grievance, the writ petition is filed. W.P.(C) No.33831/10 : 2 : 4. However, pleadings show that when Ext.P4 notice was issued, petitioner had approached tis Court by filing W.P. (C) No.25173/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing that Ext.P4 be treated as a notice and that the petitioner shall file his objections. It is also directed that orders on Ext.P4 shall be passed and that the same shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks after the date of communication of the order to the petitioner. It is seen that pursuant to the aforesaid liberty given, petitioner has already filed Exts.P7 and P9 objections before the second respondent. Orders on Ext.P4 have not been passed so far. 5. Therefore, if the petitioner wanted further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 be kept in abeyance till a decision on Ext.P2 revision is rendered, in my view, the petitioner should have sought that relief in W.P.(C) No.25173/2010. It is seen that such a relief was neither asked nor granted in Ext.P6. Therefore, at this stage, it is impermissible to file yet another writ petition and seek the W.P.(C) No.33831/10 : 3 : relief. 6. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant the prayer as sought for. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge