Devaki vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 28 November, 2006

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26858 of 2003(V)


1. DEVAKI W/O. LATE THYMPANNA MOOLYA,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAMA MOOLYA, S/O. LATE THYMPANNA MOOLYA
3. VASANTHI D/O. LATE THYMPANNA MOOLYA,
4. JAYASREE D/O. LATE THYMPANNA MOOLYA,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ASSIGNMENT)

5. KRISHNA BHAT, S/O. GANAPATHY BHAT,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO

                For Respondent  :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :28/11/2006

 O R D E R
                               KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

                        -----------------------------------------

                            W.P(C)No.26858  of  2003

                        -----------------------------------------

                Dated this the 28th  day of  November, 2006


                                     JUDGMENT

Ext.P3 order passed by the second respondent is under challenge.

Though several contentions are raised in the writ petition it is mainly

contended that the statutory revision filed by the petitioners against the

assignment of land to the 5th respondent has been disposed of without

affording an effective opportunity for hearing to them. That aspect is

admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4.

Though a request for adjournment was made that was not allowed.

There is an interim order ever since 22-8-2003. After having heard

counsel on both sides and also the learned Government Pleader I am of

the view that it is only in the interests of justice that an opportunity for

hearing is to be given to the petitioners since they are pursuing the

statutory remedy of revision before the second respondent.

Accordingly without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case

I quash Ext.P3. Petitioners shall not ask for any adjournment when the

matter is posted for hearing by the second respondent. Fresh orders in

W.P(C)NO.26858/2003

-:2:-

the matter will be passed by the second respondent with notice to the

petitioners and the 5th respondent within a period of four months from

the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The status quo as on

today with regard to the possession will continue till such time.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

ahg.