IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33831 of 2010(D)
1. M.V.JOHN, AGED 68 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PATHANAMTHITTA
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
4. THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT,
For Petitioner :SRI. K.SHAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :09/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 33831 of 2010 D
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Issue raised by the petitioner is in relation to one
cent of puramboke land, which is a part of 37 cents situated in
Old Survey No.284/7A of Mezhuveli village. According to him,
due to a mistake in the survey, it is now classified as
puramboke. The issue is now pending in revision before the
first respondent. Ext.P2 is a copy of the revision.
2. It is stated that in the meanwhile, Ext.P4 notice has
been issued under the provisions of the Land Conservancy
Act and the petitioner apprehends that coercive action would
be taken based on Ext.P4 before Ext.P2 revision is decided.
3. Petitioner submits that the outcome of Ext.P2
revision will affect Ext.P4 and, therefore, further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P4 should be kept in abeyance until orders
are passed on Ext.P2. It is with this grievance, the writ
petition is filed.
W.P.(C) No.33831/10
: 2 :
4. However, pleadings show that when Ext.P4 notice
was issued, petitioner had approached tis Court by filing W.P.
(C) No.25173/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by
Ext.P6 judgment directing that Ext.P4 be treated as a notice
and that the petitioner shall file his objections. It is also
directed that orders on Ext.P4 shall be passed and that the
same shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks after
the date of communication of the order to the petitioner. It is
seen that pursuant to the aforesaid liberty given, petitioner
has already filed Exts.P7 and P9 objections before the second
respondent. Orders on Ext.P4 have not been passed so far.
5. Therefore, if the petitioner wanted further
proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 be kept in abeyance till a
decision on Ext.P2 revision is rendered, in my view, the
petitioner should have sought that relief in W.P.(C)
No.25173/2010. It is seen that such a relief was neither
asked nor granted in Ext.P6. Therefore, at this stage, it is
impermissible to file yet another writ petition and seek the
W.P.(C) No.33831/10
: 3 :
relief.
6. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant
the prayer as sought for.
Writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge