IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 26398 of 2011(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ AJITH.P. NAIR, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, PRANAVAM, MANNAM NAGAR.P.O, PERUMPULLIKKAL, PANDALAM - 689 501. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 691 579. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANTHALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 501. 5. THE SECRETARY, MYNAPALLY SREE ANNAPOORNESWARY TEMPLE, PERUMPULICKAL, MANNAM NAGAR.P.O, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 501. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J.RAJASREE R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.26398/2011 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1- PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PLACING OF HUNDI AND THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT-P2 -TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10/06/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20/06/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).26398/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that in the 5 cents of land acquired by him for the propose of widening M.C Road and also for the construction of K.I.P Canal, there is a bunyan tree. It is stated that the fifth respondent is trying to construct a temple under the bunyan tree and if that materialises, it will result in the obstruction of the pathway which is now being used by the petitioner. 2. Notice was served on the fifth respondent and the fifth respondent submits that they have no proposal to construct temple as apprehended by the petitioner. 3. Now that the said submission is made on behalf of the fifth respondent, it is clear that there is no basis for the apprehension of the petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs