IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18525 of 2011(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. C.R. JAYAKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 41 YEARS, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, UDYOGAMANGAL P.O., ELOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.E. MARAYKKAR, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 70 YEARS, KANJIRATHINKAL, ELOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. T.P. MUHAMMED KUNJU, S/O.PAREETH, AGED 65 YEARS, THERATT HOUSE, ELOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. NAVAS MUHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEF, AGED 40 YEARS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, MUPPATHADOM P.O., KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. K.M. MAJEED, S/O.MARAYKKAR, AGED 45 YEARS, THERATT HOUSE, ELOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. SHAJI, S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 42 YEARS, VALIYACHALIL HOUSE, ELOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. M.K. AZEEZ, S/O.KOCHAHAMMED, AGED 70 YEARS, MUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 18525 of 2011(M) 8. M.A. PAREETH, S/O.ALIKUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS, MUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT, (P.W.D), ROAD SUB DIVISION, ALUVA, PIN-683 101. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT (P.W.D), KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 501. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 18525 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING CONVENED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 26/12/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE FOURTH PETITIONER DATED 13/06/2011. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 17/06/2011 AT THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE FOURTH PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE FIFTH PETITIONER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SIXTH PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SEVENTH PETITIONER. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE EIGHTH PETITIONER. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 29/06/2011. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 29/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18525 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are bunk owners near the Travancore Chemical Company at Anavathil, Eloor. According to the petitioners, these sites were alloted to them based on Ext.P1 minutes of the meeting. It is stated that despite such allotment, they are now asked to demolish the bunk shops and that Exts.P4 to P11 notices have been issued to them. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Although the minutes of the meeting, a copy of which is Ext.P1, states that subject to availability of land, persons like the petitioners will be rehabilitated at Anavathil area, petitioners have not produced anything to show that land was actually alloted to them in pursuance to Ext.P1. In view of absence of such materials, the case was adjourned in order to enable the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions in the matter. Accordingly, he has obtained instructions based on which it is submitted that due to non availability, land was not alloted pursuant to Ext.P1. WPC No. 18525/11 :2 : 3. In such circumstances, the occupation of the petitioners is really a trespass, and if that be so, they have no right whatsoever to continue such occupation. In such circumstances, if the impugned notices were issued under the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act requiring the petitioners to vacate from the premises, I see no reason to interfere with these notices. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp