This appeal was dismissed as the High Court concluded it was frivolous to entertain it when the writ petition was highly belated and bypassed statutory remedies, even though the impugned single judge judgment was partially vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931
WA.No. 773 of 2009() -------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8908/2008 Dated 17/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1,2,5,8 AND 10 -----------------------
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 to R4.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R.RAMAN, Ag.C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
W.A.No. 773 of 2009
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Raman, Ag.C.J.
Appellants had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8908 of 2008, challenging Ext.P5 order rejecting the application of the appellants for assignment of land, as per the provisions of the Land Assignment Act. Finding that Ext.P5 order was passed as early as on 21.2.2005 and the writ petition was filed after three years, the learned Single Judge held that it was highly belated. However, in the next paragraph, the case of the appellants that they are in possession of the land was also found to be belied by the contents in Ext.P2. In so far as the learned Single Judge declined to interfere because it was belatedly filed, we do not think, there is any justification for entering any finding on fact. Accordingly, paragraph 3 of the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.8908 of 2008 is vacated. However, we sustain the judgment dismissing the writ petition, since the writ petition was highly
2
W.A.No.773 of 2009
belated. Further, the writ petition itself was filed bye-passing the remedy, if any, available under the statute. If, for any
reason, the appellate remedy is barred, there is no reason to entertain the writ appeal also. Hence, for these reasons, we find no reason to interfere in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Even though the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that since the appellants are in possession of the land, they cannot be evicted forcefully. He also places reliance on some of the decisions of the Apex Court as also this Court. We need not examine these contentions in this writ appeal, in so far as the present writ appeal is against refusal to assign land and not against forceful eviction.
P.R.RAMAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE
nj.
Augustian Kurian & Ors.
The Tahsildar, Kanayannur & Ors.
P.R. Raman
C.N. Ramachandran Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
