IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 37598 of 2004(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- MR. B. SUNDARA ALVA, S/O.RAMANNA ALVA, R/AT KELAGINA BELINJA, KUMBADAJE VILLAGE, P.O.YETHADKA, KASARAGOD TALUK/DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, LAND ASSIGNMENT, KASARAGOD. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 6. SMT.JAYALAKSHMI, W/O.JAGANNATHA SHETTY, R/AT KELAGINA BELINJA, KUMBDAJE VILLAGE, (P.O)-YETHADKA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. S. DILIP R6 ADV. MR. V.V.ASOKAN MS. S.AMINA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(c0 37598 OF 2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2002 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/06/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 06/12/2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ACCOMPANYING REVIEW PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17/11/2004 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER. SIXTH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : EXT. R6 (a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE MALAYALAM TRANSALATION OF THE PARTITION DEED DOCUMENT NO. 284/1963 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 37598 of 2004 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3rd August , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the cancellation of assignment of land given to the petitioner as early as in the year 1984, which according to the petitioner is not in conformity with the actual facts and figures and the relevant provisions of the law. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the contesting 6th respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the departmental authorities / State. 3. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition shows that an extent of 0.61 cents of land in R.S. No. 228/1F of Kumbadje village was assigned in favour of the petitioner way back in 1984. The 6th respondent challenged the same, by filing an appeal before the 5th respondent, stating that, assignment effected in favour of the petitioner was not correct or proper and that the 6th respondent was having preferential right to claim the property in favour of her. But the appeal preferred by the 6th respondent was dismissed by the RDO, which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing a revision petition before the second respondent. W.P. (C) No. 37598 of 2004 : 2 : 4. After considering the case projected by the 6th respondent / revision petitioner, a positive finding was rendered by the revisional authority that the assignment obtained by the writ petitioner was suppressing the concerned partition deed from the notice of the assigning authority and that there was an element of misrepresentation. It was in the said circumstances, that the impugned order passed by the RDO was set aside and the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the concerned authority as specified, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P2 order has been passed by the second respondent without proper application of mind. It is also stated that the infringement of legal provisions and the actual facts regarding the dispute in question were brought to the notice of the concerned authority by filing Ext. P3 review petition, which however was not entertained, stating that, there was no power for review. The factual points are sought to be highlighted with reference to Ext. P4 sketch and such other materials. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the finding rendered by the second respondent vide Ext. P2 is on the basis of the available materials on record. It is also revealed from Ext. P2 that W.P. (C) No. 37598 of 2004 : 3 : despite issuance of notice, there was no representation for the writ petitioner / respondent in the revision petition. It is also relevant to note that there is no specific pleading either in wit petition or in Ext. P3 review petition, that the proceedings were finalized by the 2nd respondent without any notice to the writ petitioner. 6. In the above circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to accept the version of the writ petitioner and as such, no interference is warranted. However, this Court finds that the matter pending before the concerned authority pursuant to the remand ordered by the second respondent vide Ext. P2 has to be taken to a logical conclusion, more so, when Ext. P5 notice was issued to both the parties, way back on 17.11.2004. Accordingly, the assigning authority is directed to finalize the proceedings pursuant to Exts. P2 and P5, passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, of course, after hearing both the sides, which shall be effected, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd