IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 17422 of 2008(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: MATHEWKUTTY, S/O.LATE T.A.VARGHESE THAZHATHIL VEEDU, KARAVALOOR PO., PUNALUR KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT.SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCYAYATHS, KOLLAM. 4. THE CHADAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY CHANDAYAMANGALAM PO., KOLLAM 5. SMT.REMADEVIAMMA.E.S., PRESIDENT, CHANDAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCYAHATH, RESIDING AT MULLASSERIL VEEDU, KURIODU, CHADAYAMANGALAM KOLLAM 6. SRI.D.SANTOSH, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, AKONAM CHADAYAMANGALAM PO., KOLLAM, (VICE-PRESIDENT CHANDAYMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHADAYAMANGALAM BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. DEEPA. K.R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 17422 OF 2008-Y ==================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that by Exts. P1 and P2, he had purchased a plot of land. Thereafter, since the land in possession was much more than what is covered by Exts. P1 and P2, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for assignment of the land. According to him, Exts. P4 to P11 shows that favourable action is being taken on the application for assignment. Meanwhile, he was issued Ext.P12 notice by the Tahsildar concerned requiring him to vacate the land within 24 hours. That notice was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition filed before this court as WP (C) No.16481/08 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P13 judgment directing that Ext.P12 be treated as a notice and that he should be heard and orders passed. It is stated that to defeat the rights of the petitioner available under the judgment referred to above, respondents 4 to 6, the President of the Panchayat and two others have trespassed into the petitioner's land. Thereupon, this writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs. i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order commanding respondents 4 WPC 17422/08 :2 : to 6 not to take possession of the land owned and possessed by the petitioner in Survey No.289/1/3 and 289/2 of Chadayamangalam Village. ii) Declare that the 4th respondent is not entitled to take possession of the land owned and occupied by the petitioner in Survey No.289/1/3 and 289/2 of Chadayamangalam Village in the guise of Ext.P12 order. iii) Declare that petitioner is not liable to be evicted from the land in Survey No.289/2 of Chadayamangalam Village which is in the possession and occupation of the petitioner and predecessors in interest from 1950 onwards. 2. The interim order also sought for by the petitioner is one for an injunction restraining the respondents from committing any waste in the land by destroying boundaries, rubber tress, plantains and other crops. 3. As already noticed, petitioner himself admits in the writ petition that trespass has already taken place and the allegation is against the respondents 4 to 6, in their individual capacity. If that be so, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against the private parties. That apart, in the nature of the relief that was sought, I feel the rights of the petitioner can be agitated only in a civil suit and not in a writ petition. WPC 17422/08 :3 : Therefore, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy elsewhere, this writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp