IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32408 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- RAHUL MOHAN UNNITHAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.RAJAMOHAN NAIR.P.R., RAKESH BHAVAN, V.KOTTAYAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.P.R.RAJAMOHAN NAIR, OF DO, DO. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE R.D.O, (SUB COLLECTOR), ADOOR. 4. THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLIKODE- KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 7. T.G.MATHEWS, NEDUVAMPIRATH HOUSE, VINOBA NAGAR, CHILAVANNUR, KADAVANTHARA P.O., KOCHI-20. R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 32408 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner's grievance is that the Additional Tahsildar, the 4th respondent, is not taking further consequential action pursuant to Ext.P9 order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner. Petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of a property covered by Ext.P1. Though mutation was originally effected, taking notice of the document of the title claimed by the petitioner, the same was cancelled by the 4th respondent vide Ext.P8 order. But the Commissioner of Land Revenue by Ext.P9 order set aside Ext.P8 order and directed fresh disposal of the application for mutation. In the light of what has been observed, I do not find any grievance in so far as the petitioner is concerned. In view of the fact that Ext.P8 itself makes it clear that it will be subject to the order of the Land Revenue Commissioner, it is up to the petitioner to pursue further steps on the basis of Ext.P9. I see no reason why the 4th respondent, a subordinate officer, should not take note of the directions contained in Ext.P9. 2. I make it clear that I have not considered the contentions of W.P.C.No. 32408 OF 2008 -:2:- the petitioner on merits nor I have considered the correctness of Ext.P9 order. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (V. GIRI, JUDGE) ttb