IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 29985 of 2002(T) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MOHAMED SHAFI, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN (LATE), SHAJEELA MANZIL, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,REVENUE(S) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. P.SURENDRAN @ YAMAHA SUSRENDRAN, CHANNAMKONATHU PUTHENVEEDU, VELLANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. KISHORE, SON OF ARJUNAN, ANJALI BHAVAN, VETTIKAVALA, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN FOR R7 SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) FOR R6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 33471 OF 2007 WPC NO. 10476 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== O.P.No.29985 OF 2002 & W.P.(C) NOs. 10476 & 33471 OF 2007 ======================= Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T When these cases came up for orders, counsel for the parties in OP No.29985/2002 informed that a compromise has been arrived at among the parties in this case and that the same is incorporated in para 5 of the additional reply affidavit filed by the petitioner in that OP. The only modification suggested to be recorded is that in terms of the compromise, the property is agreed to be registered in favour of the 6th respondent therein and that the petitioner and the 6th respondent therein have agreed that such registration can be either in the name of the 6th respondent or his nominee. This being acceptable to both sides is recorded. 2. In the light of the compromise as above, the parties seek to withdraw the writ petitions in order to pursue their claim for the benefit of the Amnesty scheme announced by the Government of Kerala. Accordingly Writ petitions are allowed to be withdrawn and are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp