IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13113 of 2004(J) PETITIONER(S): 1. C.T.KATHIRESAN,S/O.CHIDAMBARAM, AGED 54,18 ROOM,K.D.H.VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,MUNNAR. 2. K.T.NACHAMMA,W/O.KATHIRESAN, 18 ROOM,K.D.H.VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,MUNNAR. 3. K.T.PALANIYAMMAN,S/O.KATHIRESAN, 18 ROOM,K.D.H.VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LAND ASSIGNMENT), DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIVASAL. 5. K.R.ANIYANKUNJU, KAVUMPURAYIL HOUSE, POTHAMEDU KARA, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR FOR R5 SMT.PRIYA VIJAYAN FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 13113 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, a learned Judge of this Court had passed an interim order dated 23-11-2004 as follows: “The petitioners submit, they are in possession and enjoyment of 16.67 acres of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 462, 463, 464, 466 and 540 of Pallivasal village. By Exts.P1 to P3 orders, the petitioners have been granted lease of the above mentioned properties in their possession, for cultivating cardamom. Pursuant to those grants, the petitioners have been paying rent, as evident from Exts.P4 to P6 receipts. While so, the 5th respondent and his supporters tried to trespass into the properties covered by Exts.P1 to P3. So, the petitioners moved O.S. 254/2003 before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam and the said court has granted Ext. P7 interim injunction order against the 5th respondent and another, prohibiting them from trespassing into the properties of the petitioners, covered by Exts.P1 to P3. Ext. P8 is the Commissioner's report and Ext. P8(a) is the sketch annexed to the said report in that suit. Later, the interim injunction has been extended until further orders, by Ext. P9 order. While so, steps were taken by respondents 2 to 4 to assign the land in their possession to the 5th respondent. The said efforts were made, based on Ext. P10 judgment of this Court , directing consideration of the 5th respondent's application for assignment of land. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed a review petition in the said O.P and in that review petition there is a stay against further proceedings, pursuant to Ext. P10 judgment. The learned counsel submitted that in violation of the said interim order, the officials are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioners. 2. The dispute involved in this case, is regarding the identity of the properties covered by Exts.P1 to P3 and the property stated to be in the possession of the 5th respondent. This is a dispute, which cannot be resolved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, if this Court has granted stay of Ext. P10 judgment and if it is violated, the remedy of the petitioners is to initiate contempt proceedings against the persons violating the interim order of this Court. Therefore, I feel that the continuance of the interim order passed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is unnecessary and it is likely to further complicate the issue and hamper the resolution of the dispute by appropriate authorities or the appropriate civil court. Accordingly, without prejudice to the contentions of both sides and their rights to move the concerned statutory authorities W.P.C. No. 13113/2004 -: 2 :- or the civil court for appropriate reliefs, the interim order of status quo is vacated.” The same contains the facts of the case and in fact conclusively disposes of the writ petition itself. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the appropriate civil court for redressing their grievances. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.