IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17305 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MARATHANKOVAL JANAKI, KOCHILAKKAD HOUSE, ARAVANCHAL P.O., VIA PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LAND BOARD, TRIVANDRUM, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINTHATTE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 17305 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 11th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T An extent of 3.60 acres of property was ordered to be surrendered by the petitioner in accordance with the ceiling provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. According to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an option and the property was taken possession of contrary to the option submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that the property taken possession of was from the middle of the property bifurcating the petitioner's property into two. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) To declare that, in view of pendency of CRP 1203/2000 before this Hon'ble Court and permission afforded by this Hon'ble Court in CRP 1728/92, taking over of P2 land in line of the land pointed out by the petitioner is improper and unjust; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to directing the 2nd respondent to inter change P2 property with the eastern portion of P3 with similar extent and relieve P2; iii) to also declare that P2 acquisition cuts the remaining property of the petitioner into two causing untold hardship in possessing it.” 2. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for more than one reason. The petitioner has been fighting the ceiling case for three decades now. There should be an end to it. The petitioner has not even produced her option in order to enable this Court to find out whether the land taken possession of was in accordance with the option. The petitioner herself admits that the land was taken possession of as per Ext. P2 mahazar although she would contend that copy of the mahazar was received only now. But going by the averments in the writ petition, it is clear that pursuant to Ext. P2 mahazar, the land was taken possession of. Admittedly, Ext. P2 mahazar is dated 4-8-2000. The land was taken possession of as early W.P.C. No. 17305/08 -: 2 :- as in 2000. The petitioner has not cared to challenge the same at least when the act of taking possession of the property against the option submitted by her was done. Of course, the petitioner would contend that she was prosecuting the C.R.P which was disposed of only on 14-12-2007 by Ext. P1 judgment. But in that C.R.P, the validity or otherwise of the petitioner's option was not an issue at all and therefore the pendency of that C.R.P was not a ground for not challenging the taking of possession as per Ext. P2, even if the taking over of possession of the excess land was against the option submitted by her, which also she has not been able to prove by producing any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this belated writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.