ZAKEER HUSSAIN Vs. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been given a patta in respect of the land bearing Re-Survey 1 of Edappal Village, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram district. It is the case of the petitioner that an attempt has been made to dislodge the petitioner from the property and the petitioner filed O.S. No. 127/2008 before the Sub Court, Tirur, in which a decree was passed preventing eviction of the petitioner. It is submitted that an appeal is pending against the judgment/decree before this Court. It is further submitted that during the pendency of those proceedings, proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act were initiated by the Tahasildar and Revenue officials. As per Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the Tahasildar to the effect that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing before proceeding further. Thereafter, the Tahasildar rejected the contentions of the petitioner and hence an appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was also rejected as per Ext.P2 order. Against that, it is submitted that the petitioner approached the District Collector. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the District Collector in the appeal was not served to the petitioner. When there was an attempt to evict the petitioner forcefully, the suit referred to above was filed, and an order was obtained. Thereafter, a revision was filed before the Land Revenue Commissioner as evident by Ext.P3, is the submission. The definite case of the petitioner is that the order against which the revision was filed was never communicated to the petitioner. But the Land Revenue Commissioner as per Ext.P4 dismissed the revision stating that it is filed beyond 30 days and it is time barred. It is also observed by the Land Revenue Commissioner that the petitioner was aware of the order of the District Collector because he filed a suit before the Civil Court after knowing about the order passed by the District Collector. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The short point raised by the petitioner is that unless the order impugned in Ext.P4 is communicated to the petitioner, the same cannot be dismissed for the reason that it is barred by limitation. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court in P.C. Varghese v. R.T.A. Malappuram and others [AIR 1985 KERALA 44].