C. LALITHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the attempt of the respondents 1 to 3 to assign 3 cents of property in his possession in Survey No.5/A-B of Pangappara Village in favour of the 4th respondent. His case is that he is in possession of the property from 1979 onwards. He filed O.P. 499 of 1992 for a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of Ext.P-1 petition without any delay. That Original Petition was allowed and the third respondent was directed to dispose of Ext.P-1 as expeditiously as possible. Having come to know of the attempt of the 4th respondent in getting assignment of the land the O.P. is filed to direct respondents 1 to 3 to assign it to him.

(2.) Contention of the 4th respondent is that his father late Ramakrishnan obtained Kuthakappattam over 5 cents of land in Sy. No.5 of Pangappara Village in 1113 M.E., that after his father's death he got possession of the property as the legal heir, that he had filed an application for assignment of the land, that it was registered as L.A. 65 of 1985, that due enquiries were made, that in the meanwhile petitioner and one Rajamma encroached upon the land and that they were evicted by the third respondent with the aid of police. It is further contended that as there was delay in assigning the land to him pursuant to his application L.A.65/85 he filed O.P.9412 of 1988 and in that O.P. this Court had issued writ of mandamus to respondents 2 and 3 to assign the property to him and as the petitioner was a party in the above proceedings and as the decision in that O.P. has become final he cannot urge any contentions against the proposed assignment of land to the 4th respondent.

(3.) In O.P.9412 of 1988 filed by the 4th respondent this Court held that his claim stands not controverted and issued writ of mandamus to assign the land to him. As the petitioner herein is the 4th respondent in that O.P. and as the judgment (Ext.R-4 (d)) has become final he cannot assail it by filing the present writ petition. Petitioner did not raise any contention in the O.P.filed by the 4th respondent. Having failed to put forward his contentions against the 4th respondent in that O. P. and allowed the judgment (Ext. R-4(b)) to become final he cannot be heard to say that the latter is not entitled to get the assignment of land in his favour.