IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20984 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAJASEKHARAN.K.T., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.K.T.BALAGGOPLAN NAIR, 'DAIVAKRIPA'. CHERUTHURUTHY (P.O), THRISSUR - 679531. 2. MALINI, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.PADINJARE THOPPIL VEETTIL SASIKUMAR, 'ASWATHI NILAYAM', CHERUTHUTHY VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR 680001. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, THALAPPILLY, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR 680 582. 4. KUNJUMUHAMMED, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KALATHIL MOIDEEN, DESAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR 679 532. SR GP SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20984 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NI.2133/10 IN O.S.483/10 IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF'S WADAKKANCHERRY DATED 7.4.11 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.2463 OF 2010 IN O.S.576 OF 2010 IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF'S WADAKKANCHERRY DATED 7.4.11 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).9476 OF 2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 4.4.11 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C).11556 OF 2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 19.4.11 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.7.11 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).20984/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 20th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P5 is a notice issued by the third respondent under Rule 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules addressed to the fourth respondent. By this notice, the fourth respondent is called upon to demolish and remove a portion of a building which is constructed allegedly encroaching into the puramboke land. Petitioner is a tenant of that building. Petitioner has filed this case mainly contending that Ext.P5 is the outcome of collusion between the fourth respondent and the official respondents in order to get the petitioner evicted and to defeat the Civil Suits he has filed against the land lord to prevent unlawful eviction from the property in question. 2. Since Ext.P5 is addressed to the fourth respondent and as he has not chosen to change the same, prima facie I am inclined to think that the petitioner does not have locus standi to maintain the writ petition. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the allegation on the basis of which notice has been issued is that the building in question has been constructed encroaching into the puramboke W.P.(C).20984/11 2 land. Not even an averment has been made by the petitioner disputing the said allegation in Ext.P5. Such being the position, I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner. Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs