IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27680 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.M.KURIAKOSE, S/O.LATE MICHAEL, AGED 61 YEARS,CHAMAKALAYIL HOUSE, VANNAPURAM POST, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THODUPUZHA- 685584. 4. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA-685584. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VANNAPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK-685584. GP SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27680 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1. COPY OF CHELLAN NO.1146 DATED 16.12.1995. EXHIBIT-P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3. COPY OF COMPLAINT NO 374/2006 ON THE FILES OF THE LOK AYUKTA DATED 19.01.2006. EXHIBIT-P4. COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA. EXHIBIT-P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.9.2007 OF THE UPA-LOK AYUKTA, SUBSTITUTED AS: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.4.07 OF THE LOK AYUKTHA VIDE ORDER DATED 19.10.11 IN I.A.16697/11 EXHIBIT-P6. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.01.2010. EXHIBIT-P6(a). COPY OF THE COPLAINT DATED 11.11.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P6(b). COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE KALIYAR POLICE STATION DATED 11.11.2010. EXHIBIT-P7. COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.04.2010. EXHIBIT-P8. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.04.2011. EXHIBIT-P9. COPY OF REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.05.2011. EXHIBIT-P9(a). COPY OF THE STAY PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH P9 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P10 SERIES. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT-P10(a). PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING DUMPING OF WASTE BY THE PANCHAYATH. (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).27680/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, an extent of 1.34 acres of land comprised in Survey No.1478/1/A of Vannapuram Village was, from time immemorial, in the possession of the predecessors and himself. By Ext.P6 order passed by the additional Tahsildar, an application made by the petitioner for assignment of the said land was rejected. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Ext.P7 appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer which was also rejected by Ext.P8 order. Against this order, petitioner has filed Ext.P9 revision before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Land Revenue. It is at that stage, the writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Exts.P7 and P9 and for other consequential reliefs. 2. As already seen, by filing Ext.P9 revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner, petitioner has already availed of the statutory remedies under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules. Since the statutory authority is thous seized of the petitioner's grievance, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into the merits of the contentions raised. W.P.(C).27680/11 2 3. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Commissioner of Land Revenue, before whom Ext.P9 Revision filed by the petitioner is pending, shall dispose of the Revision with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner also seeks a direction to require the respondents to entrust the property to him at least as a Receiver. Now that this Court has relegated the petitioner to seek his remedies before the revisional authority, I leave it open to the petitioner to make an application before the revisional authority in which event, the revisional authority will consider the same and pass orders thereon, without any delay. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs