IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18869 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SURESH, S/O.MADHAVAN, KILAVAN PARAMBIL HOUSE, NENMANIKKARA, PUTHUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RAJESH, S/O.MOHANAN CHILLAYI HOUSE, PANTHALLOOR NELLAYI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SINEESH M.S, S/O.SATHYAN MUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NELLAYI, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. V.MANGAYAKARASSI, W/O.C.VELUMANI, S.M.EARTH MOVERS, PALAYI STREET SIVA GANGAI, TAMIL NADU. 5. SUMESH, S/O.SANKARA NARAYANAN THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, PUTHANPEEDIKA ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. ASHEENA, W/O.SATHEERTHAN ERANEZHATH HOUSE, NATTIKA, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR PIN 680 001. GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18869 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANTHIKKAD DATED 1.6.2011 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE ASSISTANT OF ANTHIKKAD VILLAGE DATED 30.5.11 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.6.2011 OF THE RESPONDENT AS ORDER NO.B3-24560/2011 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.6.2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C).15336 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES. (True Copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).18869/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 12th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The writ petitions filed by the petitioners and others, whose vehicles were involved in proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, were disposed of by Ext.P4, directing the release of the vehicles, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “In view of the serious dispute as to the very applicability of the 'Act' and also the possible/probable infringement of the statutory prescriptions, this Court finds that the interest of revenue can be safeguarded, if the petitioners are permitted to have the interim custody of the vehicles on furnishing security in the form of 'immovable properties' for the requisite value, to the satisfaction of the respondents, in place of 'bank guarantee'. It is ordered accordingly. The petitioners shall furnish sufficient security in the form of 'immovable properties' to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent and comply with the other W.P.(C).18869/11 2 requirements as mentioned in Ext.P5 on which event, the interim custody of the vehicles shall be released forthwith. Ext.P5 will stand modified only to the above limited extent. The 1st respondent shall pass final adjudication orders in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 2. It is stated that based on the directions in the said judgment, when release of the vehicles were sought for, by producing security of immovable property, respondents insisted on production of original title deeds. It is there upon, this writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders of directions commanding the respondent not to insist for the production of original title deeds of the properties offering as immovable property security by the petitioners as directed in Ext.P4 judgment of this Honourable Court.” W.P.(C).18869/11 3 3. When immovable property is offered as security, in order to ensure that the property is free from any charges, the respondents are entitled to demand production of the original title deeds. In that view of the matter, I see nothing erroneous in the stand taken by the respondents. I do not find any ground to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs