IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10366 of 2008(H) -------------------------- OS.158/2007 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, N/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI KALACKAVILKA VEETTIL, NADAKKAVU MURI PERINGALA VILLAGE. 2. G.MOHAN KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI NALUKARATHID PADUTTATHIL, KARICHAL MURI VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. OFFICIAL RECEIVER OFFICIAL RECEIVER'S OFFICE, DISTRICT COURT MAVELIKKARA. 2. BASHEER, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN KOLATHURUTHEL, VEEYAPURAM P.O. 3. IBRAHIM KUTTY, S/O.KOCHUKUNNU ADICHERIAL VEEDU, VEEYAPURAM P.O. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 10366 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Mavelikara, in IA 201/08 in OS 158/97. By the said order the court held that “the properties are still in possession of the Official Receiver and so permission could have been given to the Official Receiver to auction the right to harvest the paddy cultivation in the properties and deposit the amount before this court.” 2. It is true that there is an order passed on 2nd January 2008 whereby the court has directed the receiver to surrender possession of properties to the persons from whom he had taken possession of the properties and report compliance within 10 days from the date of that order. The court below itself had observed that the properties had not been handed over and it is still in possession of the receiver. When it is so, the case of the writ petitioners that they had given the licence for cultivation to somebody else and that those persons have cultivated the same cannot be upheld. 3. Therefore the order of the court below is sustained and the writ petition is dismissed. Anyhow since there is a direction by the court below to deposit the amount before the court, if there is any entitlement, it is for the parties to move the appropriate application and the court can consider the same in accordance with law. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps