IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24844 of 2010(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHITHUMMA KUNJUMUHAMMED, AGED 55, W/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, ELAVAKKATT HOUSE, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM P.O., EZHIPRAM KARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD SRI.T.S.SUMESH SRI.K.V.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, O/O.DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PERIYAR VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT, SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT. 6. KODUMKALLI, AGED 50, VAZHAKKULAM SOUTH, EZHIPRAM KARA, ERNAKULAM-686 670 ADV. MR. P. NARAYANAN – GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.24844 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 5 in evicting the sixth respondent who is allegedly occupying Government land. Even according to the petitioner, the sixth respondent is occupying government land and not land belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner's only contention is that the sixth respondent has constructed a shed in front of the petitioner's property in Government land, which is an eyesore and because of that the value of the petitioner's property would be diminished. Whatever be the effect of the action of the sixth respondent, it remains a fact that the land occupied by the sixth respondent is Government land and not the petitioner's land. If that be so, this writ petition is in the nature of a public interest litigation. Therefore, I cannot entertain this writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move a public interest litigation for the same cause of action. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd