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. 27853 of 2007(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.J.JOHNSON, S/O. LATE C.P.JOHN, 'CHAMMANAM', CEMETRY ROAD, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ *1. ANTI @ ANTONY, S/O. PUTHEN PARAMBIL ANTONY, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. JOSEPH @ JOSE, S/O. PUTHEN PARAMBIL ANTONY, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. LAND TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR, (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.R.), THRISSUR). 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR EAST. 5. REVENUE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.R.), THRISSUR. *IST RESPONDENT IS DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/12/2007 IN I.A. 16719/2007. 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.27853/2007-N: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 23/01/2002 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CHALLAN DT. 21/07/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 5429/1/2006 DT. 13/11/2006 & COVERING LETTER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 31/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.5. TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 05/03/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION DT. 15/05/07 GIVEN BY THE GOVT. PLEADER TO R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21/05/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 27853 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 11, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an order passed by the 3rd respondent allowing an application for shifting of kudikidappu and the petitioner is the landlord. It is stated that the shifting charges also have been remitted by him and Ext.P3 is the sale deed that has been executed in pursuance to Ext.P1. The complaint of the petitioner is that despite the fact that Ext.P1 has become final and binding on the 2nd respondent, neither has he obeyed the order nor is the order executed by the authorities. According to the petitioner, the Land Tribunal itself sought police help for implementing the order, when the 2nd respondent undertook to shift out the premises and that again has not been complied with. It is also stated that even though notices were issued by the Land Tribunal and time was sought for by the 2nd respondent, even as on date he continues to occupy the same place. It is in this background the writ petition has been filed praying for directing the 5th respondent to implement Ext.P1, if necessary with the assistance from the 4th respondent. WP(C) 27853/07 Page numbers 2. Though notice has been served, the 2nd respondent has not entered appearance. 3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that though attempt was made for implementing Ext.P1, it has not been fruitful so far. If, as a matter of fact, the order has become final as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is also not disputed by the learned Government Pleader, I see no justification for its non-implementation. If, as stated, when the 3rd respondent took steps, the 2nd respondent sought for time for obeying the order, he should have shifted out of the premises and that having not been done, it is essentially for the 5th respondent to take action for implementation of Ext.P1. Accordingly I dispose of this writ petition directing that respondents 3 and 5 shall take effective steps for implementation of Ext.P1 and, if necessary, it will be open to take assistance from the 4th respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-