IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30114 of 2011(L) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- KOLLATHU CHATHANKERI PADASEKHARA NELLULPADAK SAMITHY, REG.NO.K.249/91, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY V.J.SEBASTIAN, VENNALIL HOUSE, PERUNNAI P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. LIJI. J. VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR-KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOTTAYAM-686002. 2. THE TAHSILDAR-CHANGANASSERY, CHANGANASSERY TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM (PO), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686101. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER-CHANGANASSERY, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY, CHANGANASSERY.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686101. 4. PUNJA SPECIAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, OFFICE OF THE PUNJA SPECIAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM-686001. 5. THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER-PAYIPPADU, OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, PAYIPPADU P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-690 556. 6. PAYIPPADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PAYIPPADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PAYIPPADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-690556. ...2/- WP(C).No. 30114 of 2011(L) -2- 7. SECRETARY, PAYIPPADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE PAYIPPADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PAYIPPADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-690556. 8. K.C.JACOB, S/O.K.T.CHACKO, RESIDING AT THACHEDATHU HOUSE, LAIKAD, CHANGANASSERY, PERUNNAI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 102. 9. RACHEL JACOB, W/O.K.C.JACOB, RESIDING AT THACHEDATHU HOUSE, LAIKAD, CHANGANASSERY, PERUNNAI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 102. 10. MATHEW GREGORY, S/O.GREGORY, RESIDING AT MEDAYIL HOUSE, LAIKAD, CHANGANASSERY, PERUNNAI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 102. 11. MARYKUTTY MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW GREGORY, RESIDING AT MEDAYIL HOUSE, LAIKAD, PERUNNAI P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 102. 12. RAJEEV P.H., S/O.P.D.HARIDAS, RESIDING AT DHANYA NIVAS, LAIKAD, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 102. 13. PONNY SOJAN, W/O.SOJAN JACOB, RESIDING AT KAVALACKAL HOUSE, LAIKAD, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 102. 14. SOJAN JACOB, RESIDING AT KAVALACKAL HOUSE, LAIKAD, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANASSERI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 102. 15. K.J.JAMES, M/S.K.B.C.WONDER HOMES, LAIKKADU, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686102. R1 TO R5 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...3/- WP(C).No. 30114 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RE-SURVEY PLAN SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY IN RESURVEY 514/5 OF CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFIFATE 28.10.2011 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. NIL. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 10.6.2009 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, KOTTAYAM INTIMATING THAT THE PETITION IS REFERRED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3.8.2011 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE O.S.255/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANASSERY. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 27.9.2011 IN O.S.NO.255/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).30114/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Padasekhara Nellulpadak Samithy. In this writ petition, the prayer is for a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 representation filed by them. Ext.P5 is addressed to the District Collector, Kottayam, alleging that respondents 8 to 15 had encroached into the Government property and as a result of which, the width of the bund and the road has been reduced. Therefore, the petitioner want them to be evicted invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. 2. Though the prayer would appear to be innocuous, it is seen from the pleadings that respondents 8 to 15 have already filed O.S.No.255/11 before the Munsiff's Court, Changanassery in which some of the office bearers of the petitioner are the defendants. That Suit has been filed seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and committing waste. In the Suit it appears that Advocate Commissioner's report also has been obtained, which according to W.P.(C).30114/11 2 the petitioner, suggest that party respondents have encroached into puramboke land. It is at that stage, the writ petition is filed. 3. Therefore, in my view, what is attempted to be achieved by the disposal of the representation is the eviction of respondents 8 to 15 from the properties, for the protection of which they have already filed the aforesaid Civil Suit. This means, that by this process what is sought for by the petitioner, whose office bearers are the defendants in the Suit, is to render the Suit itself infructuous. This in my view is impermissible. Therefore, I am not inclined to issue a direction as sought for. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge