IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 31072 of 2000(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KUNHIRAMA MANIYANI, S/O. APPA MANIYANI, RESIDING AT MARATI MOOLE IN KARADKE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARGOD TALUK. BY ADV. MR.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. M.KRISHNA MANIYANI, S/O. APPA MANIYANI, RESIDING AT MARATI MOOLE IN KARADKA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARGOD TALUK 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KASARGOD TALUK, PO. KASARGOD. 3. THE AVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARGOD AT KANHANGAD, P.O.KANHANGAD. 4. THE COMMISSIONER , LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.31072/2000 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN LA. NO.29/72/KARADKA. DT. 4.5.76. P2:- COP ORDER PASSED BY the 3RD RESPONDENT IN D.DIS. 5736/99(A.A.35/98) DT. 17.6.99. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN L.R. (J)2-24565/99 G.DIS. DT. 19.7.2000. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 31072 of 2000 ================== Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T This original petition was admitted on 6.11.2000. The petitioner has not paid process so far even to the 1st respondent. Today when the matter was taken up in the Defect List, none appears for the petitioner. As such, the original petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Even otherwise, I do not find any merit in the original petition. From a reading of the original petition I find that the petitioner is challenging the orders of the authorities under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, whereby the petitioner's challenge against assignment of certain lands in favour of his brother, the 1st respondent herein, was rejected by the appellate and revisional authorities. The petitioner challenged the assignment after 22 years of the assignment. The appellate authority found that there was no explanation for the long delay and, that there is nothing to show that the petitioner was not aware of the assignment earlier. In Ext.P3 order the revisional authority found that the petitioner himself had signed as a witness in the security documents produced by the 1st respondent before the Land Mortgage Bank, wherein the patta issued to the 1st respondent which was sought to be cancelled, had been produced as security for 2 the loan amount to be given to the 1st respondent and therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he was not aware of the assignment earlier. I do not find any infirmity in those orders. Accordingly, this original petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 31072 of 2000-Y ================== J U D G M E N T 4th March, 2009