IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 32523 of 2006(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUBAIDA, W/O. ABOOBACKER, NADUVANCHERRY HOUSE, PONMUNDAM, POST CHERIYAMUNDAM TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, KERALA CIRCLE, CALICUT. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR , SRI. T.T. THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP 38916/2002 DATED 20.12.2002 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER DATED 5.5.2005 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER DATED 13.6.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 32523 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is in this Court a second round for direction to the respondent to reconvey the property taken over for construction of post office by the Central Government. This Court vide Ext.P1 judgment directed the respondent to consider petitioner's case for reconveyance of any excess land held by the respondent. Pursuant to the judgment the matter was reconsidered by the Post Master General, and he vide Ext.P3 stated that respondent cannot reconvey the land held by it. Petitioner's property was acquired more than 20 years back and therefore I do not think at this distance of time petitioner is entitled to request for reconveyance of the land. Petitioner has given a suggestion to the respondent that if land is reconveyed he will construct the post office building and give it on rent to the department. However, respondent has rejected this proposal. I do not think this Court has any justification to interfere with the policy decision of the Government to have post office in their own building. W.P.C. is therefore devoid of any merit and is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2