IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 22548 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- FABINOSE GEORGE, AGED 52 YEARS, SON OF SHRI OUSEPH VARKEY, RESIDING AT NEERAMPUZHA HOUSE, P.O. PARAPPUZHA, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 582. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN SRI.V.M.MICHAEL RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI PAINAVU. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. IMMANUEL MATHEW, KOCHUMUTTOM HOUSE, P.O. POTHANICADU,POTHANICADU KARA & VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.22548 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be the owner of 62.01 hectars of paddy land of Kodikulam Village in Thodupuzha Taluk of Idukki District. He complains that, the 4th respondent has encroached into that property and constructed a road through his property by filling up paddy field in spite of prohibitory order issued by the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar against filling up of paddy lands. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) To call for the records relating to Exhibits P-1 to P-6 and to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the third Respondent specifically to prevent the 4th Respondent from proceeding with the filling of the land any authority of law; (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate urgent action on Exhibit P-3 and P-4 and afford adequate protection to the Petitioner for the life and property of the Petitioner from the 4th Respondent and his men any authority of law; (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus direction to the third Respondent - Circle Inspector of Police to take appropriate legal action against the 4th Respondent who is filling the paddy field of the Petitioner illegally with the muscle power and political influence exerted by the ruling political party members;” 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as W.P(C)No.22548 of 2008 - 2 - also learned Government Pleader. When the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property in which the 4th respondent does not to have any right at all. I do not think that orders passed under Kerala Land Utilisation order can be enforced against 4th respondent who has no right in the property. The provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation order can be invoked only against the owner of the property. This is because the authorities cannot direct a stranger to restore the property to the original position and if he fails to do so to auction the property for cultivation. Such orders can be issued only against the owner of the property and not against a stranger. According to me, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing a suit against the 4th respondent for injunction, restraining the 4th respondent from entering into the petitioner's property and filling up the same. In fact, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already approached the Civil Court. Therefore, without prejudice to his right to pursue that remedy, this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs