IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 21537 of 2002(W) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MADHAVAN S/O.CHOONDAPURAKKAL VELU CHEMMANNOOR, ARTHAT VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, ARTHAT VILLAGE, ARTHAT PANCHAYAT, THALAPPILLY TALUK, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARTHAT VILLAGE, KARIKKAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. 3. THE SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR. 4. SMT. THANDU, W/O.SIMON, EDAKULATHUR HOUSE, P.O.CHAMMANNUR, KANIPPAYUR (VIA), PIN: 680 517 Addl. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Addl. 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 20-10-2006 ON IA 14048/06. ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU ON 16-1-2008. BY ADV. SRI.U.RAVISANKAR FOR R4 SRI.PEARLY JOSE GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.A.K.CHINNAN SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE G.P.SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R5 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 21537/02 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: Photocopy of notice dated 4-8-99 issued bythe 2nd respondent to the petitioner. P2: photocopy of notice dated 28-10-86 issued bythe Executive Officer, Arthat Panchayt to the petitioenr. P3: Photocopy of judgment dated 24-9-90 in O.S.No.744/86 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. P4: Photocopy of common judgment dated 16-6-1997 in A.S.No.60/91 and 68/91 on the file of the District Court, Thrissur. P5: Photocopy of judgment of this Honourable Court in O.P.No.20390/99 P6: photocopy of notice dated 15-9-1999 issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner. P7: Photocpy of application submitted by the petitioner before the Panchayat referred to in the original petition on 7-11-2001. RESPODNENTS' EXHIBITS:- R1: Communication dated 20-3-2002 sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichur to the 4th respondent . Pius C. Kuriakose, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No. 21537 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of January,2008 JUDGMENT District Collector, Thrissur is impleaded suo motu as additional 6th respondent. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it may not be necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the matter. The petitioner has obtained a decree of injunction in his favour passed by a competent civil court, which has been confirmed by the District Court. The 4th respondent and the Panchayat (now succeeded by the Kunnamkulam Municipality) were parties to the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested that a direction may be issued to the concerned authority to take an early decision on Ext.P7 application for assignment, which has been pending since long. 3. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the 4th respondent has also filed an application for assignment, which, it is seen, has been submitted only during the pendency of the writ petition. Any way, application for assignment has been filed by the 4th respondent during the pendency of the writ petition. I feel that the 4th 2 respondent can also be heard while considering Ext.P7 application by the concerned respondent. The application has been submitted not under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, but under Rule 6(6) of the Rules for Assignment of land within Municipal and Corporation Areas, 1995 wherein the assignment authority is the District Collector. 4. The stand of the Government expressed through the statement filed by the Tahsildar is that the property belongs to the Municipality and the District Collector as the assignment authority under the Rules for Assignment of land within Municipal and Corporation Areas, 1995 has to dispose of Ext.P7 in accordance with law. Hence, I dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions:- 1. The additional 6th respondent or any authority who is competent to assignment of the land under the Rules for Assignment of land within Municipal and Corporation Areas, 1995 shall take up Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner and on due enquiries, hear the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent and take a decision thereon as early as 3 possible, at any rate within four months of receiving copy of this judgment. 2. While taking a decision, the authority shall due regard to the situation that Ext.P2 decree of permanent prohibitory injunction has been passed against the panchayat (now succeeded by the Kunnamkulam Municipality) as well as against the 2nd defendant who is predecessor-in-interest of the 4th respondent. 3. Till such orders are passed on Ext.P7, status quo as on today will be maintained regarding the subject matter of the assignment. Pius C. Kuriakose, Judge. mn. 4