IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7275 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VELAYUDHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.SHANKARAN, KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PONNANI. 2. THE SECRETARY, PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, PONNANI. 3. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.APPUKKUTTY, PULICKAL HOUSE, PUNNATHURUTHIDESOM, PONNANI. ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN FOR R1,2 SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN FOR R1,2 SRI.P.G.SURESH FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).7275/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Main challenge in this writ petition is against the surrender of a property effected by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, 3rd respondent has surrendered the temple property it only for the benefit of his brother who has property adjacent to the property surrendered. It is stated that the Municipality has taken over the property and is proceeding to utilize the same. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner complaining against the surrender and the utilization of the property by the Municipality. 2. In my view, the whole issue will depend upon the validity of the surrender of the property of the 3rd respondent. The validity of such an action by the 3rd respondent is a pure civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and the matter has to be settled by the petitioner only in a Suit before the Civil W.P.(C).7275/10 2 Court. This the petitioner may do. In view of this, I do not think the remedy of the petitioner is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and for that reason, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs