IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3487 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. PALANISAMY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KARUPPASAMY, LOWER DIVISION, GUDERALE ESTATE, KDH VILLAGE, MUNNAR. 2. K.AYYANAR, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.KARUPPIAH,KDH VILLAGE, MUNNAR. 3. CHELLAMMA, W/O.CHITRANGADAN KDH VILLAGE, MUNNAR. 4. RAJA, S/O.KADAKKARA, SOUTH DIVISION, CHOCKANAD ESTATE,MUNNAR. BY SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LAW DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 2. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 3. DEPARTMENT OF LAW ,STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001 R1 TO R3 BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL.SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.3487 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are plaintiffs in Exts.P1 to P5, suits pending before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam. What made them to file this writ petition is the definition of Section 2 (d) of the Munnar Special Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short) and the proposed transfer of the aforesaid suits to the Tribunal constituted under the Act. 2. Section 2 (d) of the Act which defines "dispute" in the following words: "2 (d). 'Dispute' means all disputes with respect to ownership, possession, use or any rights whatsoever over or concerning the land in Munnar area as well as all constructions and other uses of the land in such area which are pending before any authority or courts." 3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, going by the definition of dispute as presently defined in the Act, even private disputes, similar to those arising in Ext.P1 to P5 suits are covered by the provisions of the Act and therefore such suits are also liable to be transferred to the Tribunal as provided in Section 4 of W.P (C) No.3487 of 2011 2 the Act. It is in this background, petitioners have sought the following reliefs. "i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing that the Munnar Special Tribunal Act 2010 (Act 13 of 2010) is ultra vires the Constitution of India. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that "disputes" defined in Section 2 (d) of the Munnar Special Tribunal Act 2010 is only relating to steps taken by the State Government under various enactments for evicting encroachers, demolishing unauthorised or illegal construction or other structures in or upon Munnar area and not in relation to any other cases of civil nature. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the Munnar Special Tribunal has jurisdiction only to entertain disputes which are in relation to steps taken by the Government under various enactments for evicting encroachers, demolishing unauthorized or illegal construction or other structures in or upon Munnar area and not in relation to any other matters of civil nature for which a properly constituting civil suit will lie before the competent civil court." 4. When this writ petition was taken up for consideration, on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General appeared. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, when the legislation was made what was intended was only to make the Act W.P (C) No.3487 of 2011 3 applicable to disputes involving Government and that the Act is not intended for resolving private disputes. It is also submitted that a proposal is already pending before the Legislature to amend the provisions of the Act including Section 2 (d) confining the definition of "dispute" only to disputes involving Government and Government properties. In view of the position as clarified by the learned Additional Advocate General, it is unnecessary to consider the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners. 5. Therefore, recording the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General to the above effect, I direct that pending amendment to the Act suits involving only disputes between private parties and not involving the Government, Government properties including Exts.P1 to P5, shall not be transferred to the Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Act. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Registry will communicate a copy of this judgment to the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam for compliance. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge