IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 12781 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- VADAKKEL BIJU GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 36, NEDIYENGA VILLAGE, KARAYATHUMCHAL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. PAYYAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, P.O.PAYYAVOOR, KANNUR DIST. 2. KOTTILA K.SURESH, S/O.CHATHU NAIR, ERUVESI P.O., TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL FOR R1 SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 12781 OF 2008 V ==================== Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against the action taken by the Panchayat for evicting the petitioner. On the facts as pleaded, it is evident that the building in question belongs to the Panchayat. The Panchayat had granted lease to the 2nd respondent and it is the 2nd respondent who has inducted the petitioner into the premises. If that be so, the status of the petitioner at best is that of a sub-lessee. 2. It is also clear that the eviction proceedings are initiated by the Panchayat for the reason that the 2nd respondent lessee, had defaulted payment of the lease rental that is payable to the Panchayat. If that be so, the Panchayat cannot be faulted for taking steps to get the petitioner evicted. 3. I asked the counsel for the Panchayat whether the Panchayat is willing to regularise the occupation of the petitioner and the answer of the standing counsel was also in the negative. 4. In view of the above, I do not find anything irregular in the action initiated by the Panchayat. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp