IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 31854 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MANU, S/O. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, THUSHARA, KATTUVILA, VENKULAM, EDAVA VILLAGE AND POST, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, REP. BY HIS FATHER AND POWER OF ATTONEY HOLDER MURALEEDHARAN NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK OFFICE, ATTINGAL.P.O. 3. VILLAGE OFICER, EDAVA.P.O. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DIVAKARAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, DEEPU SAW MILLS, DEEPU WOOD INDUSTRIES, KATTUVILA, VENKULAM, EDAVA.P.O, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK. 6. EDAVA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY EDAVA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDAVA P.O., VARKALA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU. R5 BY ADV.SMT. SUMATHY DANDAPANI. R6 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31854 of 2009(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAPGES OF BTR OF EDAVA VILLAGE SHOWING THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO. 274/17. EXT.P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDNET ON 10.10.2006 EXT.P3 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.27733/06(B) DTD. 20.10.2006 EXT.P4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE K2-22471/06 ISSUED BY THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR. EXT.P5 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.K2-22471/06 DATED 12.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION FORWARDED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S DATED 13.04.2009. EXT.P7 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18.03.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a) : PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL DATED 23.02.2008 PREFERRED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 16(1)(b) OF THE KERALA LAND CONSERVANCY ACT BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT. R5(b) : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.4068/08/D DATED 03.03.2008 PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN EXHIBIT R5(a) APPEAL. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 31854 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 22nd June , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this court with the followingh prayers: “(a) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 1st and 2nd respondent to remove the encroachment into the puramboke land to the extent of 0.721 cent in Sy.No.274/17 of Edava Village holding that fifth respondent had encroached into public pathway so as to block the right way of petitioner (b) to issue such other writ, direction or order which deem fit for the facts and circumstance of the case so as to remove the unauthorized encroachment into the property in Re.Sy.No.274/17 of Edava Village holding that Revenue authorities had not removed the encroachment and Ext.P5 report is false and unsustainable © to issue appropriate writ direction or order commanding the sixth respondent to remove the encroachment to the extent of 0.721 cents in the Puramboke in Re.Sy.No.274/17 so as to remove the obstruction in the Public W.P.(C) No. 31854 OF 2009 2 Property.” 2. During the pendency of the above proceedings, the petitioner has preferred a petition under Section 15 of the Land Conservancy Act, 1957 before the 6th respondent, a copy of which has been produced as Ext. P6 along with I.A.No.9541 of 2011. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is given to the 6th respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P6 in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. 3. Heard the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 6th respondent as well as the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 t o 4. 4. Considering the limited nature of the relief pressed for before this Court, it is not necessary to go into the factual disputes or as to the question of law raised in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 6th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6, in W.P.(C) No. 31854 OF 2009 3 accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent. The proceedings as above shall be finalised, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. The words “Ext.P6” occurring in lines 4 and 7 of the 2nd paragraph and in line 5 of the 4th paragraph of the judgment dated 22.06.2011 in W.P.(c) 31854/2009 are corrected and substituted as “Exhibit P7” as per order dated 24.10.2011 in I..A.No.15133/11 in W.P.(C) 31854/2009. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) lk