IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5545 of 2005(I) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. MOHAN GEORGE, VEERALATHU VEEDU, ELAMBAL P.O., PUNALUR. 2. JOHNSON, MOHANAVILAYATHU, ELAMBAL MURI, ELAMBAL POST, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILAKKUDI, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE), VILAKKUDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM. 5. SUDHA ASOKAN, POONARAVADAKKETHIL VEEDU, ELAMPAL MURI, VILAKUDI VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SATHEESH MOHAN, AYODHYA, KOTTARAKKARA. 6. RAGHAVAN PILLA ASOKAN, POONARAVADAKKETHIL VEEDU, ELAMPAL MURI, VILAKUDI VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SATHEESH MOHAN, AYODHYA, KOTTARAKKARA. 7. ARUN ASOKAN (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.SUDHA ASOKAN. 8. SATHEESH MOHAN, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 AYODHYA, KIZHAKKEKKARA MURI, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R8 SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R8 SRI.MANU V. FOR R8 SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.NO.5545 OF 2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD 12.11.2003 IN SY.NO.315/10/23 OF VILAKKUDI VILLAGE. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD 24.12.04. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21..12.04. ISSUED BY R4. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 29.12.04 ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 6.1.05 ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE ORDER D TD 27.1.05 PASSED BY R2. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD 4..1.05 IN O.S.NO.3/05 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD 10.1.05. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R4 COPY OF NOTICE NO.A1-100/98 DTD 2.2.98. EXT.R4(A) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 25..6.04 IN WPC.17591/04. EXT.R8(A) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.79/95 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.R8(B) COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A.14/05 AND I.A.66/05 IN OS.3/05 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. /TRUE COPY/ cl P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.5545 OF 2005-I ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Ravindran, J: In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge Exts.P5 to P8. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The first petitioner purchased 3 ½ cents of land situated in Sy.No.315/10/23 of Vilakudi Village as per Ext.P1 assignment dated 12.11.2003. Later, he assigned a portion thereof to his brother, the second petitioner, as per Ext.P2 assignment dated 24.12.2004. Pursuant to the assignment in his favour, the first petitioner applied for transfer of registry and on his application mutation was effected in the revenue records. After the execution of Ext.P2 sale deed, the second petitioner commenced construction of a shop building. While the matters took thus, the Secretary of the fourth respondent panchayat issued Ext.P5 memo dated 21.12.2004 calling upon the first petitioner to stop the construction on the ground that it is in violation of Section 220(B) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. This was followed by Ext.P6 order dated 29.12.2004 passed by the Village Officer, the third respondent. WPC.NO.5545/05 . 2 Thereafter, the second respondent issued Ext.P7 order dated 6.1.2005 informing the first petitioner that an appeal has been filed by the fifth respondent against the order passed on his application for transfer of registry and that pending that appeal, he should not make any further construction in the property. Thereafter the second respondent passed Ext.P8 order dated 27..1.2005 cancelling the transfer of registry in favour of the first petitioner. The writ petition was thereupon filed challenging Exts.P5 to P8. 2. As regards the challenge to Ext.P5, it is only a stop memo issued under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the action taken by the fourth respondent, it is for them to resort to the remedies provided under the said Act. As regards Ext.P6 issued by the third respondent Village Officer, the allegation is that the petitioners are in possession of poramboke land. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the directions issued by the third respondent in Ext.P6, it is for them to explain to the said officer that they are not in possession of poramboke land and therefore, the order restraining them from proceeding with the construction should be recalled. They can also challenge the orders passed in other WPC.NO.5545/05 . 3 appropriate proceedings. 3. Exts.P7 and P8, are orders passed on the appeal filed by the fifth respondent challenging the transfer of registry in favour of the first petitioner. The pleadings disclose that the property conveyed to the first petitioner by his vendors Sri. Thankappan Pillai and his wife Smt. Leelamani Amma as per Ext.P1 was the subject matter of a gift deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent by Smt. Bhargavi Amma on 18.3.1987. Smt. Bhargavi Amma later cancelled the gift deed on 17.5.1989. Thereupon respondents 5 to 7 instituted O.S.No.129 of 1989 in the Sub Court, Kottarakkara for setting aside the deed cancelling the gift deed and seeking other reliefs. The said suit was decreed. Smt. Bhargavi Amma thereupon filed A.S.No.79 of 1995 in the Court of the District Judge, Kollam. Smt.Bhargavi Amma died while the appeal was pending and thereupon the first petitioner's vendors were impleaded as supplemental appellants in A.S.No.79 of 1995. By Ext.R8(a) judgment delivered on 22.5.2000, the Court of the District Judge, Kollam, dismissed the appeal upholding the decision of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara, in O.S.No.129 of 1989. In view of the above decision, Ext.P1 sale deed executed by Sri. Thankappan Pillai and Smt. Leelamani Amma to the first petitioner does not WPC.NO.5545/05 . 4 convey any title to him over the property. It is brought to my notice that though the first petitioner's vendors had instituted S.A.No.669 of 2000 in this Court challenging the decree and judgment in A.S.No.79 of 1995, the said appeal was dismissed. In view of the decision of the competent civil court, the petitioners cannot take exception to Exts.P7 and P8. The challenge to Exts.P7 and P8 must therefore fail. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed subject to the observations made above. No costs. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl WPC.NO.5545/05 . 5