IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17484 of 2007(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ASHRAF, S/O. MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT PERISSERI HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 2. ABDUL SALIM, S/O. MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT PERISSERI HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 3. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT PERISSERI HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.SURENDRAN, MR.P.A.HARISH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PERUMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERUMANNA P.O., PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SECRETARY, PERUMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAH, PERUMANNA P.O., PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE PRESIDENT, PERUMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PERUMANNA P.O., PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLALAM POLICE STATION, NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE. W.P.(C). NO.17484/2007-F: 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLALAM POLICE STATION, NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 7. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, R4 TO R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17484/2007-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ORDER NO. BL.NO.470/2000/2005-2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ORDER NO. BL.NO.420/2004-2005. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 12/01/2007. EXT.P.3.B: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 20/02/2007. EXT.P.3.C: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 03/01/2007. EXT.P.3.D: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 07/04/2007. EXT.P.3.E: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 19/04/2007. EXT.P.3.F: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 24/05/2007. EXT.P.3.G: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 24/05/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 01/06/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DOCTOR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 163/2007 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DT. 01/06/2007. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 17484 OF 2007 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners in this matter stand to accuse the first respondent Grama Panchayat of having acted in an unauthorised manner in depriving the petitioners of their custody of river sand. The allegation is that without any lawful authority, the panchayat and police authorities committed acts which are unauthorised in terms of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. That piece of legislation provides a regulation for removal of sand. It prescribes punishments and provides for measures of prosecution etc. The procedure to be followed are also prescribed therein. The allegation is now about the exercise of authority in that Act. The plain and clear averment is of unauthorised deprivation of property, viz, the sand. Based on counter affidavits, respondents contend that the petitioners are part of a sand mafia and are involved in various cases including criminal cases referable to the aforesaid Act. But the issue here is ultimately as to whether the petitioners had title to the property, viz, the sand that was allegedly removed from their custody or possession and if so, whether such act amounts Wpc 17484/2007 2 to an unlawful act. As of now, the sand is not available either with the police or the panchayat. It is stated to have been auctioned off by the panchayt on the next day of seizure. On the allegation of total lack of authority in terms of the aforesaid Act, a deeper consideration as to whether sale could have been held on the very next day does not really arise. All the aforesaid clearly show that if at all the petitioners could have a remedy, that is only by establishing their title to the sand, which is allegedly removed from their possession and on establishing that there is illegal deprivation of property, the compensatory remedies by way of damages or otherwise is a matter to be raised, pleaded, proved, established and relief obtained from the competent civil court. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioners seeking relief from the appropriate civil court, if so advised. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/20/8