IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1386 of 2008(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.N.LOHITHAKSHAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATTUMPURATH HOUSE, GIRINAGAR SOUTH, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI - 682 020. 2. K.N.KAMALAKSHAN, KATTUMPURATH HOUSE, GIRINAGAR SOUTH, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI - 682 020. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.1386/2008-M: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PATTA NO:L1 2997/81 ISSUED BY THE 4TH & 5TH RESPONDENTS. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 30/10/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 37687/2003 DTD. 10/12/2003 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 08/01/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 08/01/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE R.3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 1386 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 11, 2008 JUDGMENT It is now submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the order dated 16.1.2008 passed, the petitioners are in receipt of a communication rejecting their application for assignment of land and that there is a possibility of their being evicted from the plots held by them. Now that the application has been rejected, the remedy available to the petitioners is to challenge the order now passed. 2. Therefore, with liberty to challenge the order dated 16.1.2008 rejecting their application, I close this writ petition. I direct that in order to enable the petitioners to seek the remedy against the order that is now served on them, I direct that status quo as on date be maintained for a period of two weeks from today. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-