IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 5152 of 2007(L) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. HAYARUNNISA BEEGUM, W/O.A.A.SAMA, NEELAGIRI, KOTTAKKAKAM, KOLLAM-13. 2. A.A. SAMAD, NEELAGIRI, KOTTAKKAKAM, KOLLAM-13. BY ADVS.MR.T.I.ABDUL SALAM MR.M.SHAHEED AHMAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. 4. DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS , SC BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.5152/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DT. 26.6.72. P2:- COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DT. 18.2.85. P2(a):- COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DT. P3:- COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN 2000 DT. 9.10.2000. P3(a):- COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN 2001 DT. 29.9.01. P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 12.8.96 ISSUED BY SECRETARY , MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. P5:- COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY IN OS. 663/96. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 11.8.05 IN OS. NO.663/96 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 24.8.06 OF THE COURT OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT. P8:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 25.2.00. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 13.3.98 OF THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY. P10:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 21.11.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1.2.07 OF THE SECRETARY OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 5152 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th May, 2009. J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of 11.150 cents of land in Chinnakada in Kollam town within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent-Corporation, which, according to her, she obtained as per Ext. P1 document. By Ext. P4 notice dated 12-8-1996, she was informed that she has made an illegal construction, encroaching into the properties belonging to the Corporation and the same shall be resumed within 7 days before which the petitioner was to remove the construction thereon. The 1st petitioner challenged that notice in O.S.No. 663/1996 before the Munsiff's Court, Kollam, which suit was dismissed by Ext. P6 judgment holding that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Tribunal for local Self Government Institutions by filing Appeal No. 272/2006, in which the Tribunal passed Ext. P7 order setting aside Ext. P4 order and directing the Secretary of the Corporation to pass fresh orders under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, after giving the 1st petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary of the Corporation passed Ext. P11 order holding that the construction made by the petitioners is encroaching into the property belonging to the Corporation and therefore the construction shall be removed within 7 days, failing which the same would be done by the Corporation and the expenses would be recovered from the petitioners. The petitioners are challenging Ext. P11 order. 2. As I have stated, the contention of the petitioners is that the property belongs to the 1st petitioner absolutely, on which only she has made the construction. From Ext. P11, I find that in view of the said contention, she had been directed to produce the survey sketch of the property from the Taluk Surveyor and she did not produce the W.P.C. No. 5152/2007 -: 2 :- same. As such, this is essentially a dispute on title. This Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot resolve the dispute resolution of which would necessarily involve taking of evidence. Therefore, evidently, if the petitioner is banking on her title to the property, her remedy lies in filing a suit for declaration of title and injunction. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/