IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 30307 of 2007(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. B.SHANMUGHAN, REMA BHAVAN, KADAKKAL JUNCTION, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. N.T.RAJAN, KOCHU VEEDU, KADAKKAL P.O., KALADDAL VILLAGE. 3. A.ABDUL RAHMAN, THUNDUVILA VEEDU, KADAKKAL P.O., KADAKKAL VILLAGE. 4. M.SHAHUL HAMEED, THADATHILVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. RAJENDRAN, R.S.NIVAS, PULLANIYODI, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. MOHAMMED BASHEER, VENGOTTKONATH VEEDU, KUMMIL VILLAGE, ANAPPARA MURI, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MR.SUMESHKUMAR SMT.T.G.SEETHAL MR.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. W.P.(C) NO.30307/2007 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D., KOTTARAKKARA. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. THE KADAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. R.SREEKUMAR, PRESIDENT, KADAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.T.K.MOHANAN ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R6,7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.30307/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONERS SHOP ROOMS BEFORE DEMOLITION. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE MOTHER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B4 20159/06 DT. 11.12.06 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF PETITIONER'S SHOP ROOMS AFTER DEMOLITION. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. NIL. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 20.12.06. P7:- COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER DT. 14.3.07. P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER DT. 6.6.07. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 30307 Of 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The prayer of the petitioners is mainly for a direction to the first and second respondents to cause an investigation into the alleged demolition of portions of the shops and buildings occupied/owned by the petitioners on the side of Kadackal – Chengamanad road in block No. 48 of Kadackal village and to initiate action against the respondents 3 to 8. There is also a prayer for restoring the petitioners' property, effecting necessary reconstruction and also for granting adequate compensation. 2. It is seen that the petitioners had submitted different representations before the various officers, including the second respondent who, based on the report submitted by the revenue authorities and also the proceedings forwarded from the office of the District Survey Superintendent, Kollam has informed the petitioners vide Ext.P8 that the action pursued by the concerned authorities was only in respect of encroachment over the purambokke land; that too after demarcating the boundaries on the basis of the measurements effected by the Taluk Surveyor after notice to all concerned and that the action pursued by the revenue authorities has never caused any loss or prejudice person or property of the petitioners; which in fact has WP (C) No. 30307 of 2007 : 2 : been subjected to challenge in this writ petition. Nature of the averments and prayers in the writ petition clearly reveals that the remedy of the petitioners if any, can only be by approaching the competent civil court or by filing necessary proceedings before such other appropriate authorities; especially when such relief can be granted only on the basis of the evidence to be adduced, which is not possible in the writ petition filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the above circumstances, no interference is called for in this writ petition and it is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to pursue the remedy elsewhere, if so advised and if so desired. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd