IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21890 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.175/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.P.SREEJA, W/O.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANCHARAKKANDI AMSOM, MAMBA DESOM, KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. K.P.KUMARAN, S/O.RAMUNNI, AGED 60 YEARS, CHANDROTH VEEDU, KANNADIVELICHAM, P.O.MAMBA, KANNUR TALUK. 2. A.K.ANDI, S/O.HARI, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNADIVELICHAM, P.O.MAMBA, KANNUR TALUK. 3. PARECHAL VASANTHA, D/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, ANCHARAKKANDY AMSOM, MAMBA DESOM, P.O.MAMBA, KANNUR TALUK. 4. PARECHAL MEERA, D/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANCHARAKKANDY AMSOM, MAMBA DESOM, P.O.MAMBA, KANNUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.21890 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 5th August, 2009 JUDGMENT Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: 1. To issue appropriate directions directing the Court of the Munsiff, Thalassery to consider and decide on the question of jurisdiction which the defendants have raised, as a preliminary issue before proceeding to try the suit in O.S.No.175 of 2008, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a time frame that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. 2. To pass such other order, which are deemed fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.175 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thalassery and the respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the suit in a representative capacity seeking a declaration that a registered sale deed executed by the third defendant in respect of the suit property in favour of the first defendant is null and void and for injunction both prohibitory and mandatory against the defendants. The suit property is Government land over which the defendants have no right but under the guise of a registered lease deed attempts are being made to meddle with and W.P.C.No.21890/09 - 2 - put up construction there, is the case of the plaintiffs. The defendants, all of them, including the petitioner filed joint written statement resisting the suit claim in which among other contentions the maintainability of the suit was also challenged as barred under Section 20A of the Land Conservancy Act. The Writ Petition has been filed for issuing directions to the court below to consider and decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before proceeding with the trial of the case, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. Inviting my attention to Section 20A of the Land Conservancy Act, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 in view of the bar under the above statute. The above respondents have filed a suit alleging that the suit property belongs to the Government without even impleading the State as a party in the suit is highlighted by the learned counsel to contend that there is ouster of jurisdiction of the W.P.C.No.21890/09 - 3 - civil court under the above statute. I find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel. In respect of matters covered by the Land Conservancy Act and the proceedings thereunder as against the State, the bar under Section 20A of the Land Conservancy Act is applicable. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed the suit in a representative capacity challenging a registered lease deed executed by the third defendant in favour of the petitioner contending that the property belongs to the Government. Their competency to file a suit and also the relief claimed thereunder are all matters arising for adjudication in the suit. It cannot be stated that the suit so filed by them is barred for the sole reason the suit property is a Government land and so much so, the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act alone is applicable. Further more, the maintainability of the suit or ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit are all matters to be considered by the court below complying with the mandatory procedures governed by Order 14 of the C.P.C. It is open to the petitioner to invite the attention of the court below the contentions raised in her written statement as to the ouster of the jurisdiction of the court for casting all issues on the pleadings as under Order 14 of the C.P.C. and then if any such issue is raised W.P.C.No.21890/09 - 4 - relating to jurisdiction to examine whether it can be considered as a preliminary issue. A writ petition to issue directions to the court below to consider the question of jurisdiction raised in the written statement as a preliminary issue as canvassed by the petitioner in the present case without even inviting the attention of the court below on that aspect cannot be entertained and I find this is not a fit case where any direction can be issued to the court below in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reserving the right of the petitioner to take appropriate steps to raise the question of jurisdiction before the court below, if so advised, the Writ Petition is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE