IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2007 / 30TH ASWINA 1929 OP.No. 17485 of 1997(F) ----------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- M.T.V.KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR, S/O. SANKARAN NAMBIAR, MUNICIPAL BUS STAND SHOPPING COMPLEX, KANHANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER SMT.SUSEELA R.BHATT RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL NO.II, PAYYANNUR. 3. KUNNATH VEETTIL MADHAVI AMMA, RESIDING AT SREEKANDAPURAM, KOTTOOR DESOM. 4. KUNNATH VEETTIL LAKSHMI AMMA, IN DO. DO. 5. KUNNATH VEETTIL PADMANABHAN, IN DO. DO. 6. KUN ATH VEETTIL VASANTHA, IN DO. DO. 7. KUNNATH VEETTIL INDIRA, IN DO. DO. 8. N.O.V.SUMITHRA AMMA, D/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, VILAYADAM HOUSE, CHOOLIYAD, P.O. MALAPPATTAM. 9. K.T.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, CLERK, KOODALI HIGH SCHOOL, KOODALI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.V.G.SANKARAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.17485/1997 ORDER ON CMP. NO.31211/1997 IN OP. NO.17485/1997 DISMISSED 22.10.2007 SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADING FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, IN S.M. 57/90. DT. 27.11.95. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN EA 97/ SM. NO.57/90 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 31.5.97. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- O.P.No.17485 OF 1997 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2007 JUDGMENT This original petition is filed challenging an interlocutory order passed in a suo mottu proceedings under the Land Reforms Act, seeking impleadment. The application for impleadment of the writ petitioner, who is a stranger, was refused by the Land Tribunal by Ext.P2 order. At this distant point of time, I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P2. I also find no ground in law to hold that the petitioner is a necessary party for the adjudication of the suo mottu proceedings. Under such circumstances, there is no jurisdictional error in Ext.P2. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb. ======================= THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J O.P.NO.17485 OF 1997 JUDGMENT 22nd OCTOBER, 2007. =======================