IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 RSA.NO. 1238 OF 2009() ---------------------- {IN AS.392/2007 OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM IN OS.239/2005 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM} .................... APPELLANTS(S): APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS ----------------------------------------------- 1. JAMES MATHEW, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.P.C. MATHEW, NOW RESIDING AT NO.15, PANNIVELIL HOUSE, CHANDRA NAGAR, MARUTHA ROAD VILLAGE, PALAKKADU, FROM MARIYA VILLAGE, PANNIVELIL HOUSE, KADUTHURUTHI KARA & VILLAGE, KADUTHURUTHI.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. LAMBOCHAN MATHEW, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.P.C. MATHEW, PANNIVELIL HOUSE, KADUTHURUTHI KARA & VILLAGE, KADUTHURUTHI.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ASST. ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASST. ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, KADUTHURUTHI.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.DILEEP THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.1238 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiffs are the appellants. Concurrent decision rendered by the two courts, holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of declaration and consequential injunction applied for, is challenged in this appeal. 2. The defendants in the suit are the State and a public official of the Water Resources Department. The cause of action for filing the suit was a notice issued alleging that the plaintiffs had trespassed upon the bund of a canal and they are liable to be evicted from the trespassed area. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the notice is illegal, in which a consequential injunction was also applied for to restrain the respondents/defendants from forcibly evicting them from the land under their occupation. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the identity of the immovable property over which they had sought for the reliefs canvassed in the suit. Admittedly, the plaintiffs did R.S.A.No.1238 of 2009 :: 2 :: not take up a commission, though their case is that the land was not a puramboke land belonging to the Government. Whatever that be, no material whatsoever was produced in the suit to identify the suit property. I do not find any impropriety or incorrectness in the decision rendered by the courts below that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs canvassed in the suit. Appeal is devoid of merit and it is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. To Judge.