IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15098 of 2007(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ELSYKUTTY GEORGE, W/O. GEORGE, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.P.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY & COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 4. THE SECRETARY, VANDAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VANDAZHI, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. R4 BY ADV. MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, MR.SAJUSH PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 15098/2007-V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/03/1989 IN SM 3/1983. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/01/2006 IN CRP NO.1081/1995. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02/04/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS)52/2000 G.EDN. DATED 28/01/2000. EXT.R4(b): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUB COLLECTOR. PALAKKAD DATED 06/06/2000. EXT.R4(c): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.C-307/F/2000 DATED 31/03/2000 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR PALAKKAD. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 15098 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner and her family members are in possession of properties having an extent of 26.58 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 561/3 in Vandazhi Village in Alathuor Taluk in Palakkad District as per document Nos. 1227/1965, 1411/1985, 1412/1985, 4275/1984 and 4276/1984 of Alathur Sub Registry. According to the petitioner, the said property was subject matter of suo motu proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act by the Taluk Land Board, Alathur in respect of a return filed by late Varkey Varkey, which ultimately ended in favour of the said Varkey Varkey. The petitioner contends that the said Varkey Varkey assigned the property to the petitioner and her family members and that the ceiling case was decided by Ext. P1 by the Taluk Land Board, which was confirmed by this Court in Ext. P2 judgment of this Court in C.R.P.No. 1081/1995. The petitioner's complaint now is that the 4th respondent, with the assistance of the local people, has removed valuable trees and started construction of a school building by trespassing into the said properties. The petitioner complains that although the petitioner had approached the Ombudsman for Local Authorities, the said application was rejected on the ground that the proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act have not become final. After Ext. P2 judgment, the petitioner claims to have approached the 1st respondent-State of Kerala by Ext.P3 requesting to take immediate steps to vacate the premises by shifting the school. The 1st respondent did not take any action so far. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: W.P.C. No. 15098/07 -: 2 :- “(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or direction against the respondents to vacate the premises where the Lower Primary School is run and functioning in the property comprised in Sy. No. 561/3 in Mangalam dam Village, Alathus Taluk, Palakkad District belong to the petitioner and her family members as per document Nos. 1227/1965, 1411/1985, 1412/1985, 4275/1984 and 4276/1984 of Alathur Sub Registry. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext. P3 representation as expeditiously as possible after hearing. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner and her family members for illegally trespassing into their property, cutting and removing valuable trees, putting up construction and other activities like starting a school.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent contending that the original owner of the property through his power of attorney had surrendered the property in favour of the 4th respondent under the Kerala Land Relinquishment Act, 1957 for establishing a school. It is pursuant thereto, the school has been constructed. He would dispute the title of the petitioner over the property. According to him, the property was validly surrendered in favour of the 4th respondent by the original owner and therefore there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Essentially, the contention of the petitioner is that the property to which the petitioner and others have title has been trespassed into and a school has been constructed thereon by the 4th respondent. This is essentially a matter for the civil court to decide in so far as title itself is disputed by the respondents. Further, the averment itself shows that the possession is with the 4th respondent. W.P.C. No. 15098/07 -: 3 :- In such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner is to file a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/