IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 773 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8908/2008 Dated 17/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1,2,5,8 AND 10 ----------------------- 1. AUGUSTIAN KURIAN,S/O.C.K.MATHEW, CHAKKALACKAL HOUSE,THOOTHIYOOR, CSEZ P.O.,KAKKANAD,KOCHI-37. 2. PETER KURIAN,S/O.C.M.KURIAN, CHAKKALACKAL HOUSE,THOOTHIYOOR, CSEZ P.O.,KAKKANAD,KOCHI-37. 3. SHYJU JOSEPH,S/O.C.K.JOSEPH, CHAKKALACKAL HOUSE,THOOTHIYOOR, CSEZ P.O.,KAKKANAD,KOCHI-37. 4. M.P.SEBASTIAN,S/O.M.O.PAILY, MANPURAYKKAL HOUSE,THOOTHIYOOR, CSEZ P.O.,KAKKANAD,KOCHI-37. 5. K.K.THANKA,W/O.V.K.PURUSHAN, VETTUVELIL HOUSE,THOOTHIYOOR, CSEZ P.O.,KAKKANAD,KOCHI-37. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,KERLA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 to R4. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, Ag.C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.A.No. 773 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Raman, Ag.C.J. Appellants had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8908 of 2008, challenging Ext.P5 order rejecting the application of the appellants for assignment of land, as per the provisions of the Land Assignment Act. Finding that Ext.P5 order was passed as early as on 21.2.2005 and the writ petition was filed after three years, the learned Single Judge held that it was highly belated. However, in the next paragraph, the case of the appellants that they are in possession of the land was also found to be belied by the contents in Ext.P2. In so far as the learned Single Judge declined to interfere because it was belatedly filed, we do not think, there is any justification for entering any finding on fact. Accordingly, paragraph 3 of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.8908 of 2008 is vacated. However, we sustain the judgment dismissing the writ petition, since the writ petition was highly W.A.No.773 of 2009 2 belated. Further, the writ petition itself was filed bye-passing the remedy, if any, available under the statute. If, for any reason, the appellate remedy is barred, there is no reason to entertain the writ appeal also. Hence, for these reasons, we find no reason to interfere in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that since the appellants are in possession of the land, they cannot be evicted forcefully. He also places reliance on some of the decisions of the Apex Court as also this Court. We need not examine these contentions in this writ appeal, in so far as the present writ appeal is against refusal to assign land and not against forceful eviction. P.R.RAMAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.