Pappu @ Chacku vs District Collector on 2 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 366 of 2007()


1. PAPPU @ CHACKU, S/O. AUGUSTHY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY,

3. LONAPPAN @ PAPPU, S/O. LONAPPAN,

4. THE ASST. DIRECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LAL GEORGE

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :02/06/2009

 O R D E R
              S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J.
                   ------------------------------------------
                        W.A. No.366 of 2007
                   ------------------------------------------
                  Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2009

                              JUDGMENT

S.R.Bannurmath, C.J.

Aggrieved by the order dated 10th October, 2006 passed by

the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.31496 of 2004, the present writ

appeal is filed. The petitioner in the writ petition has sought for the

following prayers:

i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd

respondent not to encroach upon the property of the

petitioner covered by Exhibit P1 and P2.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any order

appropriate writ, order or direction directing the

respondents to consider Ext.P7 representation and take

action forthwith in accordance with law.

iii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the

records leading up to Ext.P5 and quash the same.”

W.A. No.366 of 2007

– 2 –

2. It is not in dispute that the notice of measurement under

challenge in this proceeding is issued to the petitioner/appellant on the

basis of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.663 of 2004

(Ext.P6) and admittedly the petitioner/appellant has not challenged the

order under Ext.P6. As such, in our view, the learned Single Judge

was justified in rejecting the parallel invocation of writ jurisdiction.

We see no error on the part of the learned Single Judge in declining to

give the relief.

3. If at all the petitioner/appellant is aggrieved by the

notice Ext.P5 only on the ground of the alleged ex parte order Ext.P6, it

is open to him to take appropriate steps to get proper relief in the writ

petition in consideration under Ext.P6.

With this observation the writ appeal stands rejected.

S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice

Kurian Joseph,
Judge
vns