MOOSA KEYI Vs. TELLICHERRY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.524/1994 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery, is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 30.6.2000 in the said suit. The appellant died on 5.4.2003. Additional appellants 2 to 6 and supplemental respondents 3 to 9 impleaded are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, C.K.P.Moosakeyi. Additional appellants 2 to 6 are the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.15637/2012 and other legal heirs are arrayed as respondents 5 to 11 in the writ petition. O.S.No.524/1994 was filed for injunction, both perpetual and mandatory and for recovery of possession. The court below held that the plaint schedule property vest with the Government and the remedy available to the plaintiff is only to claim for damages and compensation. The court below held that in view of Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the decisions cited in the judgment, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the plaint. The suit was dismissed with costs.

(2.) THE defendants in the suit are Thalassery Municipality and Special Tahsildar (LA), Thalassery. Respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.(C).No.15637/2012 are the Thalassery Municipality, Secretary, Thalassery Municipality, Special Tahsildar (LA) and State of Kerala. The parties hereinafter are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the suit.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the Municipality it is admitted that the land acquisition proceedings was initiated and advance possession of 41 cents of property belonging to the plaintiff was taken on 7.10.1983. It is admitted that from 1983 onwards, the Municipality is in possession of the plaint schedule property and that due to lack of funds, acquisition proceedings got lapsed. It is contended that the plaintiff has absolutely no right over 30 cents of land given free of cost to the Municipality and that the plaintiff had executed a relinquishment deed on 25.1.1989. It is further stated that the plaint schedule property includes 30 cents of property given free of cost to the Municipality and so the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief claimed in the suit. In the additional written statement it is pleaded that the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of possession is not maintainable in law, that the claim for recovery is time barred and that the plaintiff is estopped from recovery of possession of the property. According to the said defendant, the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to sue for the land value and damages, if any, under the Land Acquisition Act, in case the Land Acquisition Officer did not complete the proceedings.