M FAR HOTELS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Possession is nine points of the law is a precept. Every claimant must succeed by strength of his own title not be weakness of his antagonists. Rightful owner cannot use force to put the person in possession out, but appeal to law; lest it may encourage lawlessness in the society.

(2.) Writ petitioners are aggrieved by an order G.O.(P) No. 302/2004/RD dated 25.9.2004 issued by the Government of Kerala directing the District Collector to repossess from the writ petitioners the Kovalam Palace and the land appurtenant thereto measuring 4.13.30 hectares in Vizhinjam Village. The order was served on the first petitioner at 6.45. p.m. on 25.9.2004 (Saturday) directing the petitioner to deliver possession by 10 a.m. on (Monday) 27th September, 2004. Petitioners then filed W.P.(C) No. 28270 of 2004 on 27.9.2004 itself and highlighted the urgency of the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and got the matter posted on 28.9.2004. On a request made by the State the matter was posted at 1.45 p.m. Learned Single Judge ordered that the takeover of the Kovalam Hotel Complex covered by Ext.P13 would be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge W.A.No. 1796 of 2004 was filed by the petitioners. In the Writ Appeal, a Bench of this Court ordered status quo and restrained the third respondent from taking possession of the remaining buildings and the premises until further orders.

(3.) Petitioners are aggrieved by the manner in which the land and the buildings are sought to be repossessed by the State of Kerala and Revenue Officers with the help of the police. Petitioners submitted that the executive action taken by the State and its officers by extra judicial methods is destructive of the basic principles of the rule of law. Petitioners pray that they shall be put back in possession of the properties forcibly taken possession of by the State through its machinery. We may deal with those contentions of the petitioners in detail in the later part of the judgment after dealing with the essential facts.