JUDGMENT : The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P13 and P14. As per the averment in the writ petition the petitioner is the Managing Trustee of the properties belonging to Koottathilara Sree Vishnu Moorthy, the deity of Kolari Bhooda Sthaanam. An extent of 88 cents situated in Resurvey No.20/4 of Nileswaram Village belongs to Koottathilara Vishnu Moorthy is recorded as such in the revenue and settlement register as evident from Ext.P1. The temple situated in the property is more than 300 years old where daily poojas are performed. While so, based on an anonymous complaint that the petitioner is cutting and removing trees from the Government puramboke land, a notice was issued to the petitioner intimating that the cutting and removing of the trees from the property of the Government is in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act . Later Ext.P2 order was issued by the Tahsildar holding that the property having an extent of 88 cents situated in Resurvey No.20/4 of Nileswaram Village is a Government property and the petitioner was treated as a trespasser and a consequential order was issued to evict the petitioner from the property and also imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved by the same Ext.P3 appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 15 (1) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act before the Sub Collector. The appeal preferred before the Sub Collector was dismissed as per Ext.P9 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P9 order, the petitioner has approached this Court filing W.P. (C)No.18027/2021, which is allowed as per Ext.P12 judgment quashing Ext.P9 and remanding the matter back to the 3 rd respondent directing him to reconsider the matter afresh on the basis of the dictum laid down by this Court in Nandakumar v. District Collector [ 2018 (1)KLT 1019 ] and Ext.P12 order of the Apex Court produced therein. After hearing, the 3 rd respondent again rejected the appeal as per Ext.P13 holding that the property is a puramboke land. While so the Ombudsman for Self Government Institutions (the 4 th respondent herein) passed Ext.P14 order by stating that the property belonging to Koottathilara Sree Vishnu Moorthi Temple is “Sarkar Puramboke” and so the compound wall, temple arch and “Idu”(Sree Moolasthanam of Sree Vishnu Moorthi) should be dismantled within a period of two months from the date of the said order. The petitioner submits that no notice was issued to the them or the petitioner was heard before issuing Ext.P14 order. It is aggrieved by these orders that the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 11 and 12 contending that the intention of the writ petitioner is to deny access through the public way. The petitioner has erected Arch and also put laterite stones so as to block the public pathway, which is a puramboke land. The petitioner does not possess ownership right over the land and the petitioner does not obtain any permission from the Municipality for such construction even if it is assumed that the land belongs to them. It is also contended that the petitioner has carried out construction of several structures unauthorisedly, as admittedly no building permits have been obtained from the Municipality. The petitioner has not established title and exclusive right over the entire extent of 88 cents in Re.Sy.No.20/4 of Nileshwaram Village. 3. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 4. On the earlier round of litigation which culminated in Ext.P12, this Court while considering the question as to whether the land is a puramboke land or the property of the deity, held that it is an issue to be decided by appropriate civil court and the official respondents have no right to take over the temple and its land using the power granted as per provisions of the Land Conservancy Act, especially in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Nandakumar 's case cited(Supra) and also Ext.P12 order of the Apex Court produced in W.P.(C) No.18027 of 2021 and accordingly set aside Ext.P9 order. As regards the contention raised by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.4353 of 2022, who are the party respondents herein that the motorable road was obstructed by the petitioner herein by constructing a wall, the Court has held that the proper remedy for the petitioners therein(party respondents herein) is to approach the competent civil court to establish their right. The petitioner would contend that Ext.P13 order has been issued without considering the specific directions issued by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment. Likewise Ext.P14 order is issued to the petitioner without even issuing notice to them. 5. Ext.P13 proceedings have been initiated in an appeal challenging the order of Tahsildar LR. The petitioner would contend that Ext.P13 order has been issued without considering the specific directions issued by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment. Likewise Ext.P14 order is issued to the petitioner without even issuing notice to them. 5. Ext.P13 proceedings have been initiated in an appeal challenging the order of Tahsildar LR. Against which a revision is provided under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, 1958. As regards Ext.P14 order is concerned, this Court in Ext.P12 judgment has clearly stated that if the respondents have any grievance that there is a motorable pathway going through the property claimed by the petitioner, the remedy is to approach the competent civil court to establish their right. In view of the specific direction issued by this Court in Ext.P12, I am of the view that the direction issued by the 4 th respondent in Ext.P14 is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly the above writ petition is disposed of as follows: i) The petitioner shall prefer a revision as provided under the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, challenging Ext.P13 order. ii) The revision preferred by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment shall be treated to have been filed within time, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been validly prosecuting the matter before this Court. iii) If a revision is filed as directed above, the 2 nd respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and any other affected parties including party respondents herein and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of filing of such revision, taking into consideration the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment. iv) Till a decision is taken as directed above the interim order granted by this Court shall continue. v) Ext.P14 order being issued contrary to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P14. iv) Till a decision is taken as directed above the interim order granted by this Court shall continue. v) Ext.P14 order being issued contrary to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P14. vi) In view of the specific contention raised by the party respondents in the counter affidavit that constructions have been undertaken by the petitioner without obtaining necessary consent and permission from the additional 13 th respondent - the local authority concerned, I am of the opinion that the party respondents may file appropriate complaint in this regard before the additional 13 th respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such a complaint is filed, the additional 13 th respondent shall consider and take appropriate decision on the same in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the party respondents herein. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of filing of the appropriate complaint/petition as stated above. With the above said directions, the writ petition is disposed of.