IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 859 of 2009(A)
1. N.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
4. TAHSILDAR, ADOOR TALUK OFFICE,
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOODAL VILLAGE,
For Petitioner :SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :20/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.859 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Being an ex-service man, as per Ext.P1 Patta dated
5.4.1975, the petitioner was assigned certain properties
with the restrictive covenant that, within 3 years from the
date of occupation or the date of registration, alienation of
the land is prohibited. However, on 20.4.1977, by sale deed
No.1467/77, the land was assigned by the petitioner to
one Kutty N. Thankan. Since the sale in question was in
violation of the covenants contained in the Patta itself, the
land was resumed by the Government in 1986. That was
challenged by the assignee in O.S.No.353/86 and on the
dismissal of it he filed A.S.No.331/89 which was also
dismissed. It is stated that the petitioner himself filed a suit
as O.S.No.72/94 before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta and
that was dismissed on 15.1.1998. Thereafter it would
WP(c).No.859/09 2
appear that he approached the Lok Ayukta but however that
complaint was also dismissed as withdrawn. It is thereafter
that, the petitioner filed Ext.P8, a complaint before the Chief
Minister of the State, requesting to issue orders for an
investigation and to give him compensation. It is stated that
the complaint was forwarded to the District Collector as per
Ext.P9. In this writ petition what the petitioner seeks is a
direction to the first respondent to conclude the proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P8 complaint made by him.
2. As already stated, the case of the respondents is that
the petitioner had alienated the land in question in violation of
the conditions indicated in the Patta, prohibiting alienation of
the property. It was therefore that the land was also resumed
way back in 1986. This issue was the subject matter of several
litigations before the civil court and in all such proceedings
and the appeals the same was confirmed. At this stage, the
attempt of the petitioner is to get the issue reopened by filing
Ext.P8 and I do not think this court will be justified in coming
WP(c).No.859/09 3
to the aid of the petitioner.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.859/09 4