IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 17282 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONERS --------------- 1. IBRAYI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, POOTHAR KUZHIYIL HOUSE, PUTHUR AMSOM, KEDAYATHUR DESOM, MANIPURAM P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. N.T.SULAIKHA, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.MOHAMMED, HOUSE NO.64 A, KUNNUMMAL PADIKKAL, KARASSERI, PUTHUR AMSOM, KEDAYATHUR DESOM, MANIPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. N.T.SAFIYA, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.KOYASSAN, HOUSE NO.266, UNNARACHAM VEETTIL, KODUVALLY, PUTHUR AMSOM, KEDAYATHUR DESOM, MANIPURAM P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. N.T.RUKIYA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.KUNHAMMED, HOUSE NO.123, NUNNIKARA, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. FATHIMA @ PATHUMMA, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.USSAINKUTTY HAJI, HOUSE NO.264 A, UNNARACHAM VEETTIL, KODUVALLY, PUTHUR AMSOM,M KEDAYATHUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. N.T.SAKEENA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.ABDULLAH, HOUSE NO.691, CHOLAKKAL, OMASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 7. N.T.SUHARA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.ASHRAF, HOUSE NO.65, A, MANNARATHODIYIL, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 8. N.T.SARINA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.LATHIF, HOUSE NO.266, UNNARACHAM VEETTIL, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 17282 of 2010(I) 9. N.T.ABDUL LATHIF, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMED HAJI, UNNARACHAM VEETTIL, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 10. AMINA HAJJUMMA, AGED 77 YEARS, W/O.KUNHI KUNHAMMED HAJI, UNNARACHAM VEETTIL, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJO'S TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 14, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJO'S TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 14. BY ADV. SHRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,IHRD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17282 of 2010(I) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1819/2003 DATED 7.6.2003 OF THE SUB REGISTRY, KODUVALLY. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1766 OF 2003 DATED 30.5.2003 OF THE SUB REGISTRY, KODUVALLY. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE R EPORT DATED 12.09.2005 OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIOJN DATED 8.09.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.09.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS 2 TO 10 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.2.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE MLA OF KODUVALLY BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT, KODUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 23.093.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.094.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 17282 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th May , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers : “.i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P9 representation forthwith. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to reassign the property involved in Exts.P1 and P2 deeds, in favour of the petitioners forthwith. iii. issue such other writ, order or direction which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. After admitting the matter on 04.06.2010, the petitioners have now come forward with I.A.No. 6828 of 2011 seeking for a direction to the respondents to re-assign the property transferred in favour of the 1st respondent to the W.P.(C) No. 17282 OF 2010 2 petitioners in view of subsequent developments. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits, on the basis of the instruction received that, the purpose for which the property was procured could not be given effect to and that the respondents are ready and willing to surrender the property to the petitioner forthwith. In the above circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the respondents to surrender the property as aforesaid, completing the formalities in this regard within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk