IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10344 of 2007(F) -------------------------------------- AS.179/2002 of PRL. SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA OS.131/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- GOPIDAS, S/O.AMMAKUNJU, AGED 46, VELIMPARAMBIL,ARATTUVAZHI WARD,KANJIRAMCHIRA MURI, ARYAD THEKKU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU MR.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- V.P. SURENDRAN, S/O.OOLIPARAU, AGED 54, VELIMPARAMBIL, ARATTUVAZHI WARD, KANJIRAMCHIRA MURI, ARYAD THEKKU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.R. AZAD BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 10344/2007-F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 09/01/2007 PASSED BY THE LOK ADALATH. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PLAN C1(a) FILED IN O.S. NO.131/96. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL IN O.A.64/83 DATED 30/11/83. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE IN O.A.3/93 DATED 01/09/94. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.10344 OF 2007 (F) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: i) to call for the records relating to Ext.P1 and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari and ii) to grant such other reliefs as are essential in the circumstances of the terms of settlement. 2. Petitioner, as plaintiff filed a suit for setting aside the purchase certificate obtained by the respondent and also for recovery of 'C' schedule property described in the plaint. Suit, numbered as O.S.131/1996 on the file of the Munsiff's court, Alluppuzha, after trial, was dismissed Against the dismissal of the suit, plaintiff preferred an appeal and it was numbered as A.S.No.179/2002 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, WPC.10344/2007 2 Alappuzha. The appeal entertained by the court was referred to the Lok Adalat to examine the chance of settlement. In the Lok Adalat, the disputes were settled and Ext.P1 award was passed. Petitioner/plaintiff moved an application before the appellate court submitting that there is some patent error in the award and it required rectification. The application was not entertained as the appeal was already disposed under the award, petitioner/plaintiff has, therefore, filed the above writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that settlement arrived at by the parties in the Lok Adalat was to surrender 2.440 cents described as 'C' schedule in the plaint in favour of the plaintiff, but by mistake, the extent of the property was shown as 1.260 cents in Ext.P1 award. Inviting my attention to Ext.P2 plan, which is prepared by the Commissioner and exhibited as Ext.C1 (a) in the suit, the learned counsel submitted that the area numbered as (3) in the 'C' schedule in the suit and it was agreed upon to be WPC.10344/2007 3 surrendered, but by an inadvertent error, it was wrongly stated as 1.260 cents in the award. Against the award, as none of the parties has any right to impeach its correctness, it is submitted, the only remedy is to seek the intervention of this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Countering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that whatever settlement arrived at by the parties is truely and correctly reflected in Ext.P1 award and the case now presented that there was a settlement for surrender of the entire 'C' schedule property in favour of the plaintiff was not correct. Inviting my attention to the terms of settlement, the learned counsel urged that if it was a case of surrender of 'C' schedule property as canvassed by the petitioner, then no special reference need be made as to what area from Ext.C1 (a) plan is to be surrendered by the respondent/defendant in the suit. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel and also taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the WPC.10344/2007 4 learned counsel for the respondent. If it was a case of surrender of 'C' schedule property described in the suit nothing more was required than such a statement in Ext.P1 award. Ext.P1 award specifically states that in item no.3 in Ext.C1 (a) plan 1.260 cents in north south direction adjacent to its eastern side has to be surrendered by the defendant. When such particulars as to the area to be surrendered are stated as having been arrived at the settlement it is futile to contend that the defendant had agreed to surrender the entire 'C' schedule property, one of the main relief as claimed by the petitioner which was declined by the trial court, and over which, an appeal was preferred. I do not find any merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009