The presence of an alternative remedy precludes the court from entertaining a writ petition.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“1. Issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction to the

1st respondent quashing Exhibit-P7 proceedings.

2. Issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction to the respondents not to make any alteration to the lie and nature of the property in question or to make any obstruction to the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property covered by Exhibit-P1 and Exhibit-P2.

3. Dispense with the filing of English translation of Vernacular documents.

4. Grant such other and further relief that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to deem fit and proper in this case.” (SIC)

2. The impugned order in this case is Ext.P7.

Admittedly, Ext.P7 is a proceedings issued by the District Collector, Pathanamthitta invoking the powers under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008. Admittedly, a revision is maintainable against the same. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

3. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to file a revision and there may be a direction to consider the same and till then interim order may be continued. I think that prayer can be allowed.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The petitioner is free to file a revision against Ext.P7 before the Addl. 6^th respondent, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. If such a revision is received, the Addl. 6^th respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the revision.

3. If the revision is filed as directed above, the further proceedings based on Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance till final orders are passed in the revision.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE nvj

11-1996 OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER KAVUMBHAGAM TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20-03-2001 Exhibit-P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK DATED 3-10-2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit-P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED