IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 27673 of 2009(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.COMPANY-DE-MENDEZ (P) LTD., PATTOOR ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE ROY MENDEZ. BY MR.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.SAJU.S.A, MR.K.C.KIRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TALUK LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL MR. RENJITH THAMPAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 18/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.27673/2009-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. NO. 6967/2002 DTD 29/08/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFICER TO THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PLEADER SEEKING LEGAL OPINION IN THIS CONNECTION DTD. 03/10/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER TO REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 11/10/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE TALUK LAND BOARD TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/02/2009. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE LAND BOARD DTD. 16/09/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.27673 of 2009 – D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 18th November, 2009. Judgment The learned counsel appearing on both sides submit that after this writ petition was filed, the Taluk Land Board, Thiruvananthapuram has passed orders on 3.10.2009 rejecting the petitioner’s request. The said order is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.30724 of 2009 wherein I have this day passed an order staying further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 3.10.2009. In view of the subsequent developments, the relief sought in this writ petition has become infructuous. It is accordingly closed, leaving open the petitioner’s contentions and reserving liberty with the petitioner to prosecute W.P.(C) No.30724 of 2009. P.N. RAVINDRAN Judge vaa