IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30631 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- N.A.KHALID, S/O. N.K.ABDULLA, OLIYATHADKA, MADHUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), KUMBALA, KASARAGOD, PIN-670 321. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD, PIN-670 315. 3. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE MADANANTHESHWARA VINAYAKA TEMPLE, MADHUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, PIN-670 121. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30631 OF 2010 (D) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P2, P5 and P6. 2. Ext.P2 is an order of assignment in favour of the 5th respondent way back on 11/12/1996. Petitioner purchased the neighbouring property subsequently in 1999. Still later, some time in 2007, he filed appeal against Ext.P2, which was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P5 order. In Ext.P5, on merits about the claim of the petitioner regarding the existence of a pathway through the assigned property also was considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the said contention was also negatived. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, petitioner filed a revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner . That is rejected by Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7 order shows that despite notices issued, petitioner did not appear before the Land Revenue Commissioner. It is in these circumstances, the impugned orders were issued. 3. First of all, the assignment was ordered way back in 1996 and the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser. On facts, in WPC No. 30631/10 :2 : Ext.P5, the claim of the petitioner regarding the existence of the pathway has been negatived and there is nothing available on record to show the said finding to be incorrect. That apart, the appeal was also highly belated. Coming to the revisional order that is passed, that order also cannot be faulted in the nature of the findings that are entered into and on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner in contesting the matter. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. 4. However, it is made clear that this judgment will not be to the prejudice of the petitioner in so far as his contentions before the Civil Court are concerned. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp