IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14538 of 2008(E)
1. PARVATHY, W/O.LATE MUTHUPANDI,
... Petitioner
2. CHITHRAVEL, S/O.PECHIYAPPAN, AGED 60
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, TO BE REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
3. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.M.VARGHESE
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :28/07/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 14538 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 28th July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Counsel for the petitioners is absent.
2. The petitioners are two persons seeking reliefs against
eviction from the properties which are stated to be in their
possession. First petitioner claims that the property in her possession
was assigned to her as per Ext. P1 patta in respect of which she has
paid tax as per Ext. P2 receipt. The 2nd petitioner claims that the
property in his possession has been certified to be in his possession
as per Ext. P3 possession certificate. On the above submissions, the
petitioners seek the following reliefs:
“I) Call for the records from the respondents concerning the
Land covered by Ext. P1 to P4 and Exts. P7 to P9 and related to
the issue raised in the W.P(C).
II) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to
dispossess the petitioners from their properties covered by Exts.
P1 to P4 documents during the pendency of proceedings pursuant
to the application of the petitioner for assignment/regularization of
assignment of land.
III) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2
to regularize the possession and title of the 1st petitioner and pass
order of assignment in favour of the 2nd petitioner by virtue of Ext.
P1 to P4 documents by issuing further orders in the matter of
regularization/assignment either as per the Rules framed under
the Kerala Land Assignment Act or as per the Kanan Devan Hills
(Resumption of Land) Act 1971.”
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd
respondent to the effect that Exts. P1 to P3 documents are forged
documents and the revenue records do not disclose the existence of
those documents. No reply affidavit has been filed against the
counter affidavit. In view of the above circumstances, if the
petitioners have got a case that they are genuine documents to prove
possession of properties, they will have to get it proved through
W.P.C. No. 14538/2008 -: 2 :-
appropriate proceedings in which they can produce evidence in
support of in their case. Therefore, without prejudice to that right,
the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.