IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND APRIL 2008 / 2ND VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13347 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. PALAKKAVU BHADRA KALI KSHETHRAM, MANJAALI MATTUPURAM MANNAM P.O., N.PARUR, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT M.C.PADMANABHAN, S/O. CHATHON, AGED 64 YEARS, MANALIL HOUSE, MATTUPURAM, MANNAM P.O., N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM. 2. PALAKKAVU BHADRA KALI KSHETHRAM TRUST, MANJALI MATTUPURAM, N.PARUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.S.SASI, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 43, PATHIYAPARAMBIL, MATTUPURAM, N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT), GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, N.PARUR. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHENVALIKKARA P.O., N.PARUR. 6. THE PUTHENVELIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PUTHENVELIKKARA, N.PARUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 13347 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: APRIL 22, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners submit that in respect of a portion of the land held in the possession of the 1st petitioner temple for several years in the past, they have submitted Ext.P4 with copies to the respondents for its assignment in terms of the provisions contained under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Rules. It is stated that during the pendency of the said application, the respondents issued Ext.P5, a notice requiring the petitioner to demolish the structures thereon. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed. 2. Taking into account the submissions made by the petitioner as above, I feel further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 should be deferred until a decision on Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner is taken and communicated to them. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 2nd respondent shall take up and consider Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner if the same has been received and is pending WP(C) 13347/2008 Page numbers consideration. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is also directed that in the meanwhile further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 will stand stayed. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-