IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 2335 of 2008 ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22981/2008 Dated 30/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------- ANNAM DANIEL, W/O.EZHUTHUPURACKAL DANIEL, PROPRIETOR, ROYAL SERVICE AND AUTO GRARAGE, IOLD PALACE PREMISES, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 2335 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The unsuccessful petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant before this Court. The grievance projected in the writ petition was against the notice issued demanding vacant surrender of the property over which leasehold right was created in favour of the appellant/petitioner and her deceased husband who were conducting an automobile workshop, service station and garage right from the year 1973. 2. After considering the facts and figures, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that the property admittedly belonged to the Government and that the land was already entrusted with the Archaeological Department for preservation of the same in view of the archaeological importance of the land. Accordingly interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed, which in turn is W.A. No. 2335 of 2008 - 2 - the subject matter of this writ appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in possession of the land pursuant to an interim order granted earlier and hence the final verdict in the writ petition is liable to be interfered by this Court, restoring possession to her, so as to meet the interests of justice, as the transfer was made in the meanwhile. 4. However, going by the admitted facts and figures, it is revealed that the rights and interests of the parties concerned, particularly the owner of the land and the appellant who claims to be the 'lessee' stand settled by way of Ext.P1 decree passed by the competent civil court. It is also revealed from Ext.P1 that the appellant was the 7th defendant before the civil court and her deceased husband was the 6th defendant. As borne by the said verdict, the rights and liberties of the plaintiffs and the defendants were settled and vacant surrender was ordered to be effected by the defendants, which has also become final by virtue of the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the W.A. No. 2335 of 2008 - 3 - appellant before this Court. 5. The remaining question is whether the stand taken by the concerned respondent as revealed from Ext.P6, which was impugned in the writ petition, asserting that the property had already been surrendered to the Archaeological Department is correct or not. It is seen that the property, pursuant to the above decree, was surrendered to the Archaeological Department in the year 1993. True, that an interim order of stay was passed by this Court earlier. But while passing Ext.P5 judgment, 'status quo' as on the date was ordered to be maintained till the matter was considered, as directed by this Court. It was in the said circumstances, that the matter was considered and Ext.P6 order was issued, wherein the actual position was noted, observing that the claim of the appellant to restore possession could not be entertained in any circumstance. 6. It is also relevant to note that none of the parties concerned in Ext.P1, particularly the plaintiff, has been sought to be impleaded in the writ petition or in the appeal. So also, W.A. No. 2335 of 2008 - 4 - the Archaeological Department, to whom the property was conveyed is also not a party before this Court. In the said circumstances, we do not find that any interference is warranted. The verdict passed by the learned Single Judge is sustained. The writ appeal is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns