IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24367 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.K.SAIDU MASTER, S/O MOHAMMED MOULAVI, THORAKKATTIL KIZHAKETHIL, POMBRA, KARAKURUSSI, PALAKKAD-678 595 2. T.ABOOBACKER, S/O ALAVI, TALIKKATTIL HOUSE, POMBRA, KARAKURUSSI (VIA) PALAKKAD 3. P.HAMZA, S/O LATE PUTHENPURA MOHAMMED, PUTHENPURA HOUSE, POMBRA, KARAKURUSSI (VIA), PALAKKAD 4. NARAYANAN, S/O SANKU, THATTANPURAKKAL HOUSE, POMBRA, KARAKURUSSI (VIA), PALAKKAD 5. C.MOHAMMED, S/O ALAVI, CHEENAN HOUSE, POMBRA, KARAKURUSSI (VIA), PALAKKAD 6. C.T.MOHAMMED, S/O LATE MOHAMMED MUZALLAR, CHERANGALTHODY, KOTTOPPADAM, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPPALAM 2. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TVM. SR.GP SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24367 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1605/1980 OF SRO, KADAMPAZHIPURAM, OBTAINED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.143/1988 OF SRO, KADAMPAZHIPURAM OBTAINED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.480/1979 OF SRO, KADAMPAZHIPURAM OBTAINED BY THE FATHER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.692/1985 OF SRO, KADAMPAZHIPURAM OBTAINED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.947/1980 OF SRO, KADAMPAZHIPURAM OBTAINED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1864/1985 OF SRO, KADAMPAZHIPURAM OBTAINED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.3.11 IN CRP NO.1824 OF 1999 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPPALAM ON 2.6.11 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).24367/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners claim to be the assignees of the declarant in C.C.No.455/1973 on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Ottappalam. It is stated that in Ext.P7 order of this Court in C.R.P.1824/1999, when the declarant claimed the benefit of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 2005, in relation to the areas under the occupation of the petitioners, this Court held that if there is any such claim, it is for the assignee concerned to claim the benefit under Section 7E of the Act by making appropriate applications. Pursuant to the right reserved in their favour in Ext.P7 order, petitioners submitted Ext.P8 application under Section 7E of the Act and the said application is pending consideration of the first respondent. It is stated that during the pendency of the said application, the second respondent is seeking to resume possession of the land and it is with this grievance, the writ petition is filed. 2, Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. W.P.(C).24367/11 2 3. If, as stated by the petitioners, claiming the benefit of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, Ext.P8 application has been received and is pending before the first respondent, it is necessary that the first respondent should decide the application with notice to the parties concerned. This the first respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that until a decision is taken on Ext.P8, status quo in so far as the possession of the land held by the petitioners as on date, shall be maintained. 4. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs