P.K.Baby v. Chandra Mohandas And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2015/6TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 12558 of 2009 (L) PETITIONER(S) :

------------------------- P.K.BABY, S/O.KURIAKO, PUTHENPURAYAIL HOUSE, THIRUVAMKULAM P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, PIN-682 305.

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

RESPONDENT(S) :

----------------------------

1. CHANDRA MOHANDAS, S/O.GOPALA PANICKER, ELECTRICIAN, PASUPARA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, VAGAMON, PEERAMEDU TALUK.

2. INDIRA MOHANDAS,W/O.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, KATTAPANA BLOCK PANCHAYAT PRESIDENT, CHALIKKARAYIL HOUSE, VAGAMON, PEERUMEDU TALUK.

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VAGAMON VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

4. TAHSILDAR, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI, PAINAVU POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

R1 TO R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE R3 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

WP(C).No. 12558 of 2009 (L) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

----------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 06.05.2004 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT 1 & 2.

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF LIST OF PROBABLE HOLDERS OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.961 OF VAGAMON VILLAGE, COVERED BY BOGUS PATTA SCAM.

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.983/99 DATED 01.07.1999 ISSUED BY THE VAGAMON VILLAGE OFFICER.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.06.2008. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.16653/2006 DATED 20.10.2008.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

W.P.(C) No. 12558 of 2009 (L) Dated this the 28th day of July, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner had filed the above writ petition for a direction to conduct enquiry into the issuance of pattas (certificate of purchase) issued unauthorisedly. 2.

The petitioner submits that the direction in Ext.P5 has not been complied with. In fact, there is no such direction in Ext.P5. This Court merely recorded its satisfaction about the enquiry conducted by the respondents and closed the writ petition directing that, if at all the District Collector was of such opinion, the enquiry can be conducted by an authority at a higher level.

3.

In such circumstance, nothing survives in the above writ petition and the same would stand dismissed. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj