MRS.MEERA BEEVI, AGED 68 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPLE

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

MRS.MEERA BEEVI, AGED 68 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPLE - WP(C) No. 18477 of 2007(Y) [2007] RD-KL 10372 (15 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18477 of 2007(Y)

1. MRS.MEERA BEEVI, AGED 68 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPLE
... Respondent

2. COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE,

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

5. TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM.

For Petitioner :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :15/06/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 18477 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JUNE, 2007

JUDGMENT

The petitioner's 'patta' has been cancelled for the reasons mentioned in Ext.P4 order. The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue challenging Ext.P4 was dismissed as per Ext.P7 order, against which the petitioner filed Ext.P9 petition before the Minister for Revenue of the Government of Kerala, which was forwarded to the Principal Secretary (Revenue) by Ext.P10 communication for appropriate action. In the meantime Ext.P11 notice has been issued to the petitioner directing him to vacate the property in question within twenty four hours. The petitioner challenges Exts.P4,P5,P7 and P11. However for the present the petitioner would be satisfied with a direction to dispose of Ext.P9 expeditiously and to stay further action pursuant to Ext.P11 till final orders are passed.

2. The learned Government pleader submits that Ext.P9 is only a representation submitted to the Minister and is not a statutory revision. He also points out that Ext.P9 is filed as a review petition. After hearing, I am not satisfied that the petitioner's petition should be rejected on such technical ground. Ext.P9 is stated to be against  W.P.(c)No.18477/07 2 Ext.P7 order. The same has also been forwarded to the appropriate authority by Ext.P10. Therefore, Ext.P9, notwithstanding that it is styled as a review petition and addressed to the Minister can be considered as a statutory revision under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules by the appropriate authority especially since it has been duly forwarded to the revisional authority as is evidenced by Ext.P10.

3. Accordingly, I direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 as a statutory revision under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules and pass appropriate orders thereon after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Till disposal of Ext.P9 further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 shall be kept in abeyance and further proceedings shall only be in accordance with the orders to be so passed on Ext.P9. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd  W.P.(c)No.18477/07 3 

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.