IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8156 of 2010(T)
1. N.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, S/O. GOPALAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. SMT.LAKSHMI, D/O. DHARAPPAN,
6. SRI.SUDHEESH, S/O. LAKSHMI,
7. SMT.VIJITHA, D/O. LAKSHMI,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :30/03/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 8156 of 2010 T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following relief:
“to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding
respondents 1 and 2 to immediately take action to
prevent commission of crimes like criminal
trespass and encroachment upon the lands
bearing Sy.No.556/1A of Panamaram Village in
Wayanad Dist. belonging to the petitioner by
respondents 5 to 7 or their agents, supporters or
political groups by taking such meaningful and
effective action as are required in law to ensure
that the order of the District Collector and the
Civil Court are duly respected, maintained and
sustained.”
W.P.(C).No. 8156 of 2010
2
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had
purchased land from one Dharappan, a member of the Scheduled Tribe.
There was a ban on sale of lands belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The
Revenue Divisional Officer allowed an application filed by
respondents 5 to 7 for restoration of the land. The District Collector,
Wayanad, however, based on the judgment of the Apex Court, reversed
the order and directed to sustain possession of the property to the
petitioner and not to restore it back to respondents 5 to 7. The
complaint of the petitioner is that respondents 5 to 7 are attempting to
trespass into the property, which led to the filing of an application for
injunction, which was granted by the Sub Court, S. Battery on
23.5.2009.
Despite the order of injunction, respondents 5 to 7 are attempting
to trespass into the property. The petitioner has already obtained an
order of injunction against respondents 5 to 7. At this stage, we feel
that it is not necessary to entertain this Writ Petition.
W.P.(C).No. 8156 of 2010
3
Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to proceed before
the competent court, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm