IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24016 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUBRAYA SHANBHOGUE, S/O. KRISHNAYYA SHANBHOGUE, AGED 78 YEARS, R/AT BAJAKUDLU, PERLA, ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, PERLA P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SRI- MAHALINGESHARA TEMPLE, BAJAKUDLU,ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, PERLA P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 121. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 121. 4. B.LAXMINARAYANAN, S/O. B.MARAPPA, BAJAKUDLU, ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, PERLA POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,PIN-671 552. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRIJAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------ WP (C) No. 24016 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T -------------------------- The petitioner in this writ petition is the Hereditary Trustee of Sri. Mahalingeshwara Temple, Enmakaje. According to the petitioner, a Government land adjacent to the temple property in re-survey No.985/1pt of Enmakaje Village is in the possession of the Temple for long, wherein a cow shed is being maintained by the temple. According to the petitioner for looking after the cows in the cow shed, the 4th respondent has been engaged as an employee and he has been allowed to reside in the property for looking after the cows. According to the petitioner, taking advantage of the situation, the 4th respondent has filed an application for assignment of that land in his favour, claiming that he is in possession of that property. Against the claim of the 4th respondent, the petitioner has filed Exhibit P3 objection before the District Collector. The petitioner now seeks a 2 WP (C) No. 24016 of 2010 direction to consider Exhibit P3 objection before taking a decision on the application for assignment submitted by the 4th respondent. The petitioner also contends that the petitioner has filed an application for assignment of the land, which also may be directed to be considered. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In the nature of the order I proposed to pass, it is necessary to issue notice to the 4th respondent at this juncture. Now that there are conflicting claims for assignment in respect of the same land, it is appropriate that the authority empowered to consider the question of assignment of the said land considers both claims, if the revenue authorities intend to assign that land to anybody. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the competent amongst respondents 1 to 3, to consider both applications of the petitioner and the 4th respondent for assignment and take a final decision regarding the same after affording an opportunity of being heard to the 3 WP (C) No. 24016 of 2010 petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. However, I hasten to add that I have not considered the matter on merits, not even the assignability of the land in question, and it is for appropriate authority to consider all questions involved, in accordance with law. The above would be subject to the condition that no final orders have already been passed in respect of the subject matter, in which case the parties shall seek their remedies under the statute applicable. S.SIRIJAGAN, JUDGE. rkc