IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9114 of 2011(L) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- O.K.SHANTHAMANI, W/O.P.K.RAMACHANDRAN, NOW RESIDING AST FACTORY ROAD, NEAR FAIRFORMASODA, ALAVIL P.O., KANNUR-670 008. BY ADVS. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C SRI.A.C.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD-671 121. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD, KANHANGAD P.O., DIST.KASARAGOD-671 315. 4. TEH TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG, P.O.KANHANGAD, DIST.KASARAGOD. 5. THE TAHSILDAR FOR LAND ASSIGNMENT, HOSDURG P.O., KANHANGAD, DIST.KASARAGOD-671 315. 6. MADHAVAN, S/O.KANNAN, CHALAKKAD, KOLATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK, PIN-679 338. svs ............2/-... ...2... WPC.NO.9114/2011 7. NARAYANAN, S/O.KANNAN, CHALAKKAD, KOLATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK-679 338. 8. GANGADHARAN, S/O.KANNAN, CHALAKKAD, KOLATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK-679 338. 9. KESAVAN, S/O.BAMBAN, KAKKACHAL, BANDADKA VILLAGE, BANDADUKA P.O.-671 121. 10. K.NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, PERLADUKAM, P.O.KOLATHUR, KASARAGOD-679 338. 11. M.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.KARICHERY KRISHNAN NAIR, PERLADUKAM, P.O.KOLATHUR, VIA CHENGALA, KASARAGOD-679 338. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9114 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March 2011 JUDGMENT The issue involved in this Writ Petition is with regard to the identity of the property concerned and as to the challenge raised against Ext.P5 order passed by the concerned R.D.O and Ext.P8 order passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. 2. Going by the materials on record, it is seen that the order passed by the concerned Special Tahsildar with regard to the assignment of the land in question, was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the R.D.O. When the R.D.O dismissed the appeal, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner for Land Revenue and after hearing, the matter was remitted for fresh disposal. The R.D.O simply remanded the matter to the Tahsildar who passed the order of assignment, to verify the land with the help of Taluk Surveyor, whichever was questioned by filing the Revision Petition by the other contesting parties before the Commissioner for Land Revenue. After hearing the parties concerned, the Commissioner for Land Revenue remanded the case to the R.D.O with a specific direction to pass appropriate orders on merits, after inspecting the site. It was pursuant to the said verdict, that the matter was considered by the R.D.O dismissing the claim, which led to the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner for Land Revenue, culminating in Ext.P8 order. W.P.(C) No.9114/2011 - 2 - 3. Going by the contents of Ext.P5 and P8, it is seen that the R.D.O has identified and measured the property as per the directions given by the Commissioner for Land Revenue and that the measurement was effected for the 'fourth time' as observed in Ext.P8. It was in the said circumstances, that a specific finding was rendered by the Commissioner for Land Revenue against the petitioner, passing Ext.P8, which is sought to be challenged in the Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well. 5. Considering the sequence of facts as narrated above, this Court finds that, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner as to the identity of the property, it has to be challenged by raising specific pleadings and adducing evidence, which is not possible in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed; without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue such other appropriate remedy in accordance with law. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE vdv