IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 25741 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ABOOBACKER, ARETHU MITTEL HOUSE, THIKKODI VILLAGE, KOYILANDI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOYILANDI TALUK-673 014. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIKKODI VILLAGE-689 646. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.25741 of 2010 (P) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Case of the petitioner is that the respondents have trespassed into his property covered by two title deeds, that were executed in 1992 & 1993 and are numbering the trees. It is with this grievance, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction that the property in survey No.16/42 having an extent of 1.13 acres belongs to the petitioner and that the respondents are not entitled to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner under the Land Conservancy Act. The petitioner also seeks a direction requiring the respondents to serve a copy of the proceedings, if any against the property, so as to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. He submits that the property is one acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated that being a Land Acquisition evictee, the petitioner was rehabilitated also. According to him, for several years, the WP(C) No.25741/2010 -2- respondents have been auctioning the usufructs from the property. Thus, according to the learned Government Pleader, by virtue of the acquisition, the property is vested in the Government and the petitioner has no right whatsoever over the property. On the other hand, the petitioner claims title over the property. In the nature of the dispute raised, the petitioner cannot seek any relief in a proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the reason that the issue raised involves disputed questions of fact, the resolution of which is not possible before this Court. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg