IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4076 of 2009(I) AGAINST ORDERS DATED 20.1.2009 PASSED IN I.A.NO.75/2009 AND 2.2.2009 IN I.A.NO.210/2009 IN O.S.NO.279.2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF: T.P. DIVAKARAN, GEETHALAYAM HOUSE, THATHAMUNNA MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT LEPROSY SANITARIUM, NOORANADU. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 4076 OF 2009 I ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the third respondent, by which the petitioner was permitted to use the “healthy area” in the compound of Leprosy Sanatorium at Nooranadu. It is stated that the total area comes to around 70 Acres of land. As per the terms of the lease deed, the petitioner was entitled to cultivate vegetables and tapioca in the property for the period from 18.10.2006 to 17.10.2008. Consideration for the lease was Rs.2,51,000/-. The petitioner filed O.S.No.279 of 2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikara for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants or any one of them from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the property. After the period of lease was over, proceedings were initiated by the third respondent against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.75 of 2009 for granting permission to him to take the yield from the crops. The court below passed an order dated 20.1.2009 in I.A.No.75 of 2009, which reads as follows: “Objection filed. Heard both sides and considered the objection. This I.A. is filed for permitting the petitioner to harvest tapioca. Petitioner auctioned the property for two years from 6.11.2006 for Rs.2,51,000/-. Since the tapioca W.P.(C) NO.4076 OF 2009 I :: 2 :: was not ripe, petitioner could not take the yield. If any delay is occurred it will make the yield damaged since it is perishable. Counter Petitioners have no objection in allowing the petition on deposit of Rs.45,000/-. Petitioner also agrees for the amount. Hence petitioner is permitted to pay Rs.45,000/- to the Counter Petitioners within 5 days and take the yield within 30 days from today. Petitioner is permitted to take yield of tapioca only. I.A. allowed.” 3. Pursuant to the order dated 20.1.2009, the petitioner deposited Rs.45,000/- on 23.1.2009. The petitioner, however, filed a Review Petition dated 24.1.2009, which is described as Revision Petition, praying to review the order dated 20.1.2009. The petitioner contended that he would not be in a position to take the yield within a period of twenty days. It is also pointed out in the Review Petition that the cultivation is not ripe for harvesting. He prayed for granting three months' period to take the yield. The court below disposed of the Review Petition, I.A.No.210 of 2009, by Ext.P11 order dated 2.2.2009, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 4. In Ext.P11 order, the court below held that the order dated 20.1.2009 was an agreed order. It was also held that the permission to harvest the crops apply only to tapioca cultivation and it does not apply to vegetables. Therefore, the court below held that there is no ground to review the order. W.P.(C) NO.4076 OF 2009 I :: 3 :: 5. When the Writ Petition came up for orders on 9.2.2009, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is not interested in taking the tapioca yield if he is not granted permission to cut the grass as well. Learned Government Pleader submitted that as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner was not entitled to cultivate grass and, therefore, he is not entitled to remove the same. The petitioner submitted that at least he may be permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.45,000/- deposited by him as he does not intend to take the yield. Learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. 6. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader submitted that petitioner had already taken the yield of tapioca on 8.2.2009. Therefore, there is no bona fides in the submissions made by the petitioner for permission to withdraw Rs.45,000/- deposited by him. I do not think that the court below has committed any error in passing Ext.P11 order. There is no merit in the Writ Petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/