IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16276 of 2011(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.P.PRASAD,S/O.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, SWAMI MADATHIL,CHENAPPADI,ERUMELI THEKKU, KANJIRAPALLY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 3. TAHSILDAR,KANJIRAPPALLY,KOTTAYAM, DISTRICT-686 507. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASHREE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16276/2011-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT RELATING TO 50 CENTS OF LAND IN RE-SY. NO.193/12, 193/13 IN ERUMELI SOUTH VILLAGE, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK. EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT RELATING TO 50 CENTS OF LAND IN RE-SY. NO. 193/12, 193/13 IN ERUMELI SOUTH VILLAGE, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF `A' REGISTER (BTR) ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ON APPLICATION. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.3. DT. 22/09/1999. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).16276/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner claims to be the legal heir of one late Prabhakaran Nair who had donated 50 cents of land in R.S.Nos.193/12 and 193/13 of Chenappadi Village, Kottayam, for a Village Office. According to the petitioner, in 1989, the village office was shifted and therefore, he made an application for returning the land. In this writ petition, the prayer sought is to dispose of the said application. 2.As already seen, the petitioner's ancestor has already relinquished all his rights over the property in question. Once relinquishment has been made, the owner ceased to have any right and if so, petitioner being a successor, has no legal right to demand the return of the property. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to direct consideration of the application preferred by the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs