IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36012 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MANGATTU CHALIL MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 56 YEARS, P.O.CHATHALLOOR, PERAKAMANNA VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MANGATTU CHALIL ISMAIL KUTTY, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 64, P.O.CHATHALLOOR, PERAKAMANNA VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. KARNOTH MULLASSERI UNNI MOIN KUTTY, S/O.KUTTOOSA, AGED 70 YEARS, P.O.CHATHALLOOR, EDAVANNA, VIA., PERAKAMANNA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM. 4. PERUPULLAN ABU, S/O.MUHAMMED, P.O.CHATHALLOOR, PERAKAMANNA VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL SRI.E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT (REVENUE DEPARTMENT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, P.O.MALAPPURAM – 676 505. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, P.O.PERINTHALMANNA – 636 124. 4. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, P.O.MANJERI – 676 121. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA VILLAGE, P.O.PERAKAMANNA – 676 541. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) NO.36012 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners grievance is that during the pendency of Ext.P4 revision filed by them, the respondents have issued Ext.P5 notice proposing to auction the usfructus in the property. 2. According to the petitioners, by Ext.P1 order, proceedings were issued by the 4th respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act proposing to evict the petitioners from the property in question. It is stated that aggrieved by Ext.P1 proceedings, they had filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was rejected by Ext.P3. Still aggrieved, they filed Ext.P4 revision under Sections 16(2) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act which is pending consideration of the 2nd respondent. It is during the pendency of Ext.P4, Ext.P5 was issued. It is in these circumstances this writ petition has been filed. W.P(C) NO.36012 OF 2010 2 3. In my view, having regard to the pendency of Ext.P4 revision, further action taken on the basis of Exts.P1 and P3, is premature and therefore should be deferred till disposal of the revision. 4. In that view of the matter I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 revision with notice to the petitioners and at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. It is directed that in the meanwhile further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 will be kept in abeyance. 5. Petitioners to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before respondents 2 and 4 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dmb