IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13038 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ROY CHARLES , S/O LATE CHARLIE PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHIN 682 018 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM 4. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS TERROTRY MANAGER IRUMPANAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 5. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GP. SRI.I.V. PRAMOD SRI.A. JAYASANKAR, SC. SRI. E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 13038 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims that certain properties which originally belonged to his late father devolved on him by succession. That property is stated to have been originally leased out to M/s Burmah Shell Oil Company. By virtue of the provisions of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976, the said land was taken over by the Government and assigned to the 4th respondent who continued to continue to occupy the same. Ultimately the land was surrendered by the 4th respondent to the Government. The petitioner now claims that since the property belongs to him, the Government is bound to re-convey the same to the petitioner. 2. The learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent would contend that the land has already been assigned to the Kerala State Housing Board. The standing counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that the 4th respondent did not have any kind of dealings with the petitioner and they never paid any rent to the petitioner or his predecessor. They are also not aware W.P.(C).No. 13038 OF 2008 2 of any lease in respect of the property. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the land being that of the petitioner the Government could not have assigned it to the Housing Board. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: 1) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 1 and 2 to take a decision regarding the representations made by the petitioner, including Ext.P2, in respect of the property having an extent of 143 cents comprised in Sy.No.229 of Ernakulam village and re- convey the same to the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Charlie to whom the property originally belonged. 2) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to proceed with the action initiated to grant Pattayam in respect of the property situated in Sy.No.229 of Ernakulam village to the 5th respondent. 4. I am of opinion that these are all disputed questions of facts which cannot gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the petitioner submits that he has already moved the Government by fling Ext.P3 and therefore the Government may be directed to dispose of the same. In the facts and circumstances of a case, I feel that the request of the petitioner can be allowed. W.P.(C).No. 13038 OF 2008 3 In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all concerned. It would be open to the petitioner to place all such documents which according to him would support his contentions, which shall be considered by the Government. The petitioner shall forward a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition to the 1st respondent for compliance. But I make it clear that I have not considered any of the contentions of the petitioner or merit and it is open to the Government to consider all issues involved in the matter independently including the questions as to, even if originally the land belonged to the petitioner's father, the petitioner can at this point of time claim any right over the property, and whether there was any lease in respect of the property executed by the petitioner or his predecessor in interest at all. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-