IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3094 of 2011(J) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SMT.BEEVI, W/O.PLACKAL BAVA, PLACKAL HOUSE, KOCHUKADAVU, P.O.ERAVATHOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. P.B.HYDROSE, S/O.PLACKAL BAVA, PLACKAL HOUSE, KOCHUKADAVU, P.O.ERAVATHOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. RASEYA BEEVI, D/O.PLACKAL BAVA, PLACKAL HOUSE, KOCHUKADAVU, P.O.ERAVATHOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD DIVISION, KODUNGALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 664. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 732. 5. THE SECRETARY, KUZHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUZHUR.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 734. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.3094 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 16th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners contend that they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of properties covered by document Nos.36/1973 and 2926/2006. It abuts the Kochukadavu - Kundur - Alamattom road. The petitioners have already constructed a compound wall so as to demarcate the said property from the road. At the very outset, it is to be noted that the survey numbers and such other descriptions and details of the property concerned are not given in the writ petition. The contention of the petitioners is that the President of the Panchayat and the Ward Member along with some persons illegally encroached into the property, demolished the compound wall and attempting to cut and remove the trees standing in front of the property of the petitioner and also trying to take forcible possession of the property. Even according to the petitioners, such an illegal act was committed as early as on 5.7.2010. This writ petition has been filed only on 28.1.2011 with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent, the District Collector, to consider Ext.P4 request and to conduct a detailed enquiry in the matter and to take appropriate action WP(C).No.3094/2011 2 against wrong doers. The further contention in Ext.P4 is that in connection with the tarring works of the existing road the Public Works Department authorities had also attempted to remove the fence. However, due to the timely intervention on the part of the petitioner it could not be materialized. It was in the said circumstances that the petitioners had approached the District Collector on 20.1.2011. Thus, it is evident that even against the action alleged to have taken place on 5.7.2010 the petitioners moved the District Collector only on 20.1.2011. As already noticed hereinbefore, in essence, the grievance of the petitioners is that the Panchayat has illegally encroached into the property belonging to the petitioners covered as per the above mentioned documents. 2. True that, on 10.2.2011 this Court issued notice on admission by speed post. However, having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at length and after perusing the documents produced along with the writ petition, I am of the considered view that the subject matter of this writ petition constitutes a civil dispute which can be resolved only through a properly constituted civil proceedings. Evidently, the contention of the petitioners is that the Panchayat authorities are illegally encroaching upon their property. In view of the WP(C).No.3094/2011 3 contention of the petitioners, going by the decision of this Court in Mammadhan Kutty v. Pallivasal Grama Panchayat (2004 (1) KLT 751) the petitioners need not wait for the expiry of the statutorily prescribed period under section 249 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short `the Act') as ultra vires actions are not protected by the exclusionary clause under section 249 of the Act. But, at the same time, it is for the petitioners to establish the same. At any rate, this writ petition with the aforesaid contentions cannot be maintained. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the Civil Court to resolve the civil dispute involved in this matter, this writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as to the merits of the contentions of the petitioners. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge