IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14661 of 2008(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE PADASEKHARA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.K.P.VARGHESE, S/O.LATE PETER K.I., AGED 43, KAVILESWARATH HOUSE, KANDANADU P.O., THIRUVANKULAM (VIA), PIN-682 305. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOCHI. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 5. UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UDAYAMPEROOR POLICE STATION, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM. W.P.(C) NO.14661/2008 7. SRI.T.P.POULOSE, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, PALLIPARAMBUKAVU ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA. 8. SMT. JEENA SEBASTIAN, W/O. T.P. SEBASTIAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., NADAKKAVU, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN FOR R7,8 SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R5 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R5 GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.14661/2008 APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.7.10.2006 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER ORGANISATION'S SECRETARY IN- PERSON. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.17.2.2007 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.22.2.2007 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPECTFUL CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA, DT.25.5.2007. EXT.P5: COPY FO THE COMPLAINT MOVED BY THE PETITIONER ORGANISATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.12.2.2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MOVED BY THE PETITIONER ORGANISATION BEFOR ETHE 5TH RESPONDENT, DT.12.2.2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER ORGANISATION'S SECRETARY IN PERSON BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICE, DT.1.2.2008. EXT.P8: COPY FO THE REPLY GIVEN TO EXT.P7. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER ORGANISATION OFFICE BEARER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.1.2.2008. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE APPEAL EXT.P11: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CONVERSION ACTIVITIES. //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 14661 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. This is a Public Interest Litigation filed alleging encroachment of the Konathu River by respondents 7 and 8, who own land on the eastern side of the river in Manakunnam Village. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 6 and counsel appearing for respondents 7 and 8. The contesting respondents have flatly denied the allegations stating that their land is only 35 cents which is dry land with coconut trees in which there is also a shed where paint is manufactured. In order to find out the factual position with regard to the allegation of encroachment, we directed the Government Pleader to get a report from the Village Officer. Even though the report is not as precise as we wanted it to be, the Village Officer has reported that there was allegation of encroachment and in fact, stop memo against filling was issued to respondents 7 and 8. However, the further statement by the Village Officer is that the Taluk Surveyor demarcated the boundary of the properties of WP(C) 14661/2008 2 respondents 7 and 8 with the river purampoke and after demarcation of the boundary, there is no encroachment by respondents 7 and 8. 2. If the position stated by the Village Officer in his report is correct, then petitioner cannot have any more grievance. However, if petitioner has any doubt about the genuineness, petitioner is free to inspect the property by themselves and verify whether boundary is clearly marked and if there is any encroachment in the river purampoke by respondents 7 and 8, they will give notice to the Village Officer, who in turn, will make physical verification and will take immediate action for preventing encroachment and if encroachment is made, to remove the encroachers. Respondents 7 and 8 shall not cause any obstruction whatsoever against the petitioner's visit and they should in fact co-operate with any inspection carried out by the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-