IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20905 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ------------------------ SHANMUKHAVEL, S/O.KARUPPAN SUSAI, AGED 55, BUILDING NO.X/440, MALANCHERIVU VEETIL, DEVIKULAM KARA, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S) :- ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI, PIN-686 001. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-686 001. 3. ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR, DEVIKULAM, PIN-686 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-650 001. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN-686 005. SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (REVENUE) SMT.SUSEELA R. BHAT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt WP(C).No.20905 OF 2011 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of communication issued by the respondent to the father of the petitioner dt.26-5-1977. Ext.P2 :- Copy of communication issued by the Special Tahasildhar, Devikulam to the petitioner's father dt.21-1-82. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the residence certificate issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner dt.26-10-1978. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the representation submitted by the wife of the petitioner before the 1st respondent dt.22-02-2000. Ext.P5 :- Copy of the receipt issued by the f4th respondent to the petitioner's wife dt.27-3-2000. Ext.P6 :- Copy of the communication issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner dt.01-08-2006. Ext.P7 :- Copy of the judgment dt.24-09-2008 in W.P.(C)No.12499/2006 of this Hon'ble Court. Ext.P8 :- Copy of the judgment dt.22-11-2006 in OP No.30147/2001 of this Hon'ble Court. Ext.P9 :- Copy of the eviction notice issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner dt.15-07-2011. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20905 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of August 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :- “a. Call for the records leading upto Ext.P9 and quash the same by issuing a writ or certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. b. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner and his family from property in Sy.No.20/I till his application for assignment of land is disposed off as directed by this Hon'ble Court in Ext.P8 judgment. c. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider his application for assignment of land in view of Ext.P8 judgment and pass orders thereon within the time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the grand father of the petitioner was in occupation of a particular property comprised in Survey No.20/I of KDH Village, Devikulam and that application for assignment of the property was pending. Very W.P.(C) No.20905 of 2011 -: 2 :- near to the said property is the Government quarters, where the petitioner is residing with his family by virtue of his employment as a Government servant. When proceedings were taken by the concerned respondent to evict the petitioner from the Government quarters, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.12499 of 2006, which culminated in Ext.P7 judgment. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 3rd respondent therein (2nd respondent herein) had permitted the petitioner to continue the occupation of the Government quarters on a rental arrangement, based on which, the petitioner was permitted to occupy the premises as per Ext.P7 judgment, so long as the agreement was in force. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in connection with the steps for assignment of the land in question, the concerned beneficiaries along with the wife of the petitioner had filed O.P.No.30147 of 2001, which was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment dated 22.11.2006, whereby the 2nd respondent therein (first respondent herein) was directed to look into the application filed by the said petitioners and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that the interim order W.P.(C) No.20905 of 2011 -: 3 :- passed therein by this Court in C.M.P.No.49047 of 2001, intercepting the eviction, will continue till such time. Learned counsel further submits that, in the guise of evicting the petitioner from the Government quarters, on his retirement from the service, by issuing Ext.P9 notice dated 15.7.2011, the petitioner and his family are also sought to be evicted from the neighbouring property as well, in respect of which the assignment steps are pending consideration. It is stated that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is given to the concerned respondent to consider the application for assignment as directed in Ext.P8 judgment and to pass appropriate orders thereon within a time limit. 4. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for Revenue as well. 5. Going by the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner was never a party to O.P.No.30147 of 2001, wherein Ext.P8 judgment was passed by this Court with regard to the steps for assignment of the land is involved. So also, it is not a disputed question of fact that the petitioner no longer continues to be Government servant having retired from the service on W.P.(C) No.20905 of 2011 -: 4 :- 31.3.2011 and there is no rental arrangement permitting to continue in the Government quarters. In the said circumstance, the challenge against Ext.P9 notice dated 15.7.2011 for evicting the petitioner from the Government quarters forthwith does not call for any interference. 6. In view of the direction already given by Ext.P8 judgment in favour of the petitioners therein, no further orders are required in respect of the case dealt with therein. Further, the petitioner, who was never a party to Ext.P8 judgment cannot have any subsisting cause of action in that regard. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. Jvt