IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34030 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JANAKI, W/O. GOPALAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULLATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, VENMANI KARA, KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. BABU, S/O. GOPALAN, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULLATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, VENMANI KARA, KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. SANTHOSH, S/O. GOPALAN, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULLATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, VENMANI KARA, KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIP.S.SUJETH SMT.M.R.REENA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVT. BODIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KANJIKKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE PRESIDENT KANJIKKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANJIKKU ZHI VILLAGE,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. JOSHWA DEVASIA, MEMBER, KANJIKKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE FOR R2 MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.34030 of 2009 (W) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are residing in a house allegedly constructed by them at Venmani kara of Kanjikkuzhi village in Idukki district. It is stated that the house is situated on the side of a road leading from Vannappuram to Chelachuvadu, which is stated to be a State Highway. According to the petitioners, although the land is a Panchayat puramboke, the building constructed by them has been numbered by the Panchayat as building No.IX/188 of Kanjikkuzhy Grama Panchayat. It is stated that the Panchayat is taking steps for their eviction for the alleged purpose of widening the road, and that if they are evicted they will have no place to live. It is also their contention that being blacksmiths they have established a workshop availing of a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the Union Bank of India. 2. However, the learned counsel for the Panchayat, on instructions, submit that the land is a PWD puramboke and that the Panchayat has nothing to do with either the land or the alleged WP(C) No.34030/2009 -2- steps for the eviction of the petitioners. If that be the factual position, the petitioners cannot have any grievance as against the Panchayat. 3. The petitioners have a further case that they are entitled to be rehabilitated by the Panchayat, and have also referred to Ext.P6. This submission is countered by the learned counsel for the Panchayat that any such rehabilitation is done by the Grama Sabha, and not by the Panchayat itself. In the aforesaid circumstances, no relief can be granted against the alleged allegation of the petitioners. In so far as the claim of the petitioners for rehabilitation is concerned, it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioners to pursue their claim before the appropriate authority. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg