IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26893 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N. JAYAPRAKASH, GENERAL SECRETARY, CANNANORE DISTRICT THIYYA SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY REG.NO.525/85 CANNANORE-670001. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CANNANORE-67001. 3. THE CANNANORE MUNICIPALITY,KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR-670001. GP MR.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26893 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6-4-1985 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-2-1994 IN OP.NO.9652/1990 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-09-2004 IN O.P.NO.14678/1995 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02-05-2007. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02-07-2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-6- WPC NO.10749/2011 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-6-2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7(A) TYPED COPY OF THE EXHIBIT-P7. (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).26893/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks a direction to quash Ext.P7 and to direct that the second respondent to reconsider the matter with an opportunity to him. The claim of the petitioner is for returning 2.95 acres of land comprised in R.S.825, Ward-I, Block-16 of Kannur Taluk, which was handed over by the Tiyya Community to the third respondent to be used as a burial ground. According to the petitioner, over the years, the property is not being used as a burial ground and therefore, the property should be returned to him for the welfare of the Community. It is this claim of the petitioner which culminated in Ext.P7 order passed by the District Collector. A reading of this order itself show that hearing was held on various dates and that on the last hearing, petitioner was not present. This order also shows that the representative of the Community was of the view that the petitioner was trying to seize the property by making a request that he wants to make use of the same as burial ground. 2. First of all, the property originally belonged to a family by W.P.(C).26893/11 2 name “Othayoth”. The said family surrendered it to the third respondent for use of a burial ground. Once the rights of the property have been relinquished in all respects, and the third respondent has become owner of the property, even if it is assumed that over the years property is not used for the purpose for which it was given, nobody has any right to claim the property back. 3. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he is a total stranger and has no right whatsoever to claim return of the property. This is all the more so, in a case where the Community for whose benefit the petitioner is claiming the property back itself is of the view that the petitioner's intention is only to seize the property. I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P7. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs