IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 40959 of 2003(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.A.JOSE , S/O MATHAI, KOTTEKAVANAL HOUSE,KANAKAPALAM P.O. ERUMELY. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ERUMELY. 2. ERUMELY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,ERUMELY. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 17.6.1992 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT DATED 26.12.2003 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2003 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT SECRETARY,ERUMELI GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.R1(b) PHOTOCOPY OF ROUGH SKETCH. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 40959 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order whereunder the first respondent has ordered demolition of unauthorised construction in reserve forest. According to the petitioner, building is taken on lease from the second respondent-Panchayath and petitioner has not made any unauthorised construction. Petitioner is a lessee and therefore petitioner cannot have any grievance against demolition of unauthorised construction, if any, made by anybody in the forest land. The question to be considered is whether petitioner has made any addition to the leased premises encroaching upon forest land. A building necessarily has to have compound and if the extension made by the petitioner is within the compound then it is encroachment of Panchayath land and Panchayath is entitled to either evict the petitioner or collect rent for the additionally constructed area at least in the form of licence fee for the land used. However, if the construction is beyond the compound and encroached upon forest land, first respondent is 2 entitled to demolish the same. W.P. is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to verify and take appropriate action in terms of the above direction. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3