IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16379 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SURESH KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, THUNDATHU VEETTIL, UMAYATTUKARA MURI, THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALLEPPEY-688001. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, K.S.T.P.DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHENGANNUR-689121. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHENGANNUR-689121. 5. DR.JOHN ZAKARIA, KOKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, LAKASSERY, CHENGANNUR-689121. ADV. SRI.R.GIRISH VARMA FOR R5 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16379/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 30.6.97. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF AWARD UNDER SECTION 12(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 DATED 28.12.2005. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.LAC NO.93/2005 DATED 28.12.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C6/5248/2009 DATED NIL.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.3.2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C6/5248/2009 DATED 15.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16379 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a tenant of the 5th respondent. A portion of the property belonging to the 5th respondent was acquired by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, he is occupying the unacquired portion of the property on the basis of Ext.P1 lease deed. It is stated that the 5th respondent wants to get the petitioner vacated and at his instance, respondents have issued Ext.P6 notice. It is thereupon the writ petition has been filed. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P6 has been issued without complying with the procedure laid down for eviction in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, which has been invoked. However, a reading of Ext.P6 shows that it only informs the petitioner that if he does not vacate from the land, he will be got vacated under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. Therefore, this contention raised by the petitioner at this stage has no substance. 3. That apart, in my view, in the nature of the allegation against the petitioner contained in Ext.P6, which is to the effect WPC No. 16379/11 :2 : that the petitioner retained possession of the acquired portion of the land and as this allegation is denied by the petitioner, the issue is a disputed question of fact, which is incapable of resolution in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Therefore, I am not persuaded to think that the writ petition is the right remedy available to the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp