IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8032 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KUNDATHIL KUNHIKANNAN, S/O. RAMOOTTY, AGED 83 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNDATHIL HOUSE, VALAPATTANAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. M. DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O. DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 63 YEARS, P.O. KURUMATHOOR, VIA KARIMBAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KURUMATHOOR VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 8032 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners' grievance in this writ petition is that on the premise that certain properties which belong to the petitioners constitute excess land under the ceiling provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act at the hands of somebody else, the respondents have issued a notification inviting tenders for taking usufructs from the property. But the petitioners would contend that as revealed from Ext. P8 sketch prepared at the time of finalization of ceiling proceedings, the particular property was excluded from the ceiling provisions, which is now in the hands of the petitioners in ownership and title. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the respondents cannot now interfere with the enjoyment of the property by the petitioners alleging that the land is excess land to be surrendered by the declarant. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am of opinion that insofar as the petitioners base their contentions on title, the petitioners' remedy lies in filing a suit for declaration of title in respect of the property. Such questions of facts cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits in a writ petition. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to file a suit for the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition, this writ petition is closed. However, to enable the petitioners to move the civil court and seek interim orders, the interim order passed by this Court in this writ petition would continue to be in force for a period of 3 months. W.P.C. No. 8032/2010 -: 2 :- Ext. P8, which the petitioners claim as the original received by them, shall be returned to the petitioners by the Registry after their producing a copy of the same. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.