IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8303 of 2010(K)
1. JAJESH, W/O.BIJU, AGED 30,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
... Respondent
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMARAMANGALAM
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
4. RATNAVALLI, W/O.LATE NARAYANAN,
For Petitioner :SMT.R.RANJINI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :15/03/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 8303 OF 2010
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MARCH, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved by Exhibit P5 order, the petitioner has filed this
Writ Petition. Exhibit P5 is passed by the Sub Collector
dismissing Exhibit P3 appeal under the Transfer of Registry Rules.
2. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that
under Sub-clause (iv) of Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry
Rules, the petitioner has got a remedy to file a revision petition
before the District Collector in the matter. Sub-clause (iv) of
Rule 18 of Transfer of Registry Rules reads as follows:
“18.(iv) There shall be no second appeal. But
it shall be open to the District Collector if he is
satisfied that sufficient ground exists to revise,
cancel or alter on his own motion or otherwise
any decision or order passed by the Revenue
Inspector, Deputy Tahsildar, Tahsildar or the
Revenue Divisional Officer within a period of
one year from the date of such decision.”
W.P.(C)No.8303/10 -2-
3. The District Collector is empowered to exercise the
power of revision on the motion of the party also against an order
passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner has got
an effective and adequate remedy under the Transfer of Registry
Rules . Therefore, if the petitioner files an appropriate revision
petition before the District Collector, the same will be considered
in accordance with law and will be disposed of after hearing all
the parties.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE
dsn