IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 859 of 2009(A) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE NANU NAIR, KURUMBELIL, KIZHAKKETHIL, MANNADI P.O., ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT NOW R/AT HOUSE NO.3, PATHALA LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, POOVATTOOR PADINJARU, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BY ADV. SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. TAHSILDAR, ADOOR TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.859 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Being an ex-service man, as per Ext.P1 Patta dated 5.4.1975, the petitioner was assigned certain properties with the restrictive covenant that, within 3 years from the date of occupation or the date of registration, alienation of the land is prohibited. However, on 20.4.1977, by sale deed No.1467/77, the land was assigned by the petitioner to one Kutty N. Thankan. Since the sale in question was in violation of the covenants contained in the Patta itself, the land was resumed by the Government in 1986. That was challenged by the assignee in O.S.No.353/86 and on the dismissal of it he filed A.S.No.331/89 which was also dismissed. It is stated that the petitioner himself filed a suit as O.S.No.72/94 before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta and that was dismissed on 15.1.1998. Thereafter it would WP(c).No.859/09 2 appear that he approached the Lok Ayukta but however that complaint was also dismissed as withdrawn. It is thereafter that, the petitioner filed Ext.P8, a complaint before the Chief Minister of the State, requesting to issue orders for an investigation and to give him compensation. It is stated that the complaint was forwarded to the District Collector as per Ext.P9. In this writ petition what the petitioner seeks is a direction to the first respondent to conclude the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 complaint made by him. 2. As already stated, the case of the respondents is that the petitioner had alienated the land in question in violation of the conditions indicated in the Patta, prohibiting alienation of the property. It was therefore that the land was also resumed way back in 1986. This issue was the subject matter of several litigations before the civil court and in all such proceedings and the appeals the same was confirmed. At this stage, the attempt of the petitioner is to get the issue reopened by filing Ext.P8 and I do not think this court will be justified in coming WP(c).No.859/09 3 to the aid of the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.859/09 4