IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24358 of 2010(O) -------------------------- EP NO.44/2009 INOS.698/1996 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAVIVARMAN, S/O.GOPALAN, THOTTUMKARA VEEDU, THEKKEVILA CHERRY, FORM CHAPRATHARAYIL,PATTAMTHURUTHU MURI, MANROTHURUTHU VILLAGE. 2. VIMALA, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, THOTTUMKARA VEEDU, THEKKEVILA CHERRY, FORM CHAPRATHARAYIL,PATTAMTHURUTHU MURI, MANROTHURUTHU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PRAKASH, CHAPPALITHARA, NEAR VAYALAR RAMA VARMA SCHOOL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA,FORM KAMALALAYAM,THEKKEVILA CHERRY, MANDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691016. 2. SUJATHA,W/O.PRAKASH, CHAPPALITHARA, NEAR VAYALAR RAMA VARMA SCHOOL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA,FORM KAMALALAYAM,THEKKEVILA CHERRY, MANDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691016. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM-691001 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE-691001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24358 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner filed O.S.No.698 of 1996 against respondents who include the Village Officer and District Collector concerned for reliefs including a mandatory injunction to remove the survey stones and fencing unauthorisedly installed in plaint C schedule (described as a puramboke land). Trial court dismissed the suit against which petitioner filed A.S.No.58 of 2001. That appeal was allowed in part directing respondent Nos.3 and 4, the Village Officer and District Collector concerned to take appropriate steps for summary eviction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 from plaint C schedule road puramboke in accordance with the Land Conservancy Act, 1957. Appellate court observed that the decree for mandatory injunction will not bar the Government from assigning disputed puramboke portion to respondent Nos.1 and 2 as per provisions of the Land Assignment Act, 1960 or issuing any licence or permit as provided under the Rules framed therein. Alleging that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not complied with the decree for mandatory injunction petitioners filed E.P.No.44 of 2009 and E.A.No.601 of 2009 for prosecution. In answer to the notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4, Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed Ext.P4, compliance report. Based on that compliance report executing court disposed of E.P.No.44 of 2009 observing that there is no violation of the decree. In view of that order E.A.No.601 of 2009 was dismissed. Those orders are under challenge in this Writ Petition at the instance of petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that decree for mandatory injunction in its letter and spirit WP(C) No.24358/2010 2 has not been complied by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Provisions of the Land Conservancy Act as per which respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to be evicted from the disputed puramboke land specifically stated that on such summary eviction crops and other improvements in the property including the building and other structures if not removed by the unauthorised occupants are liable to be forfeited to the State Government. That according to the learned counsel indicated that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are bound to remove the trees in the disputed puramboke land. It is contended by learned counsel that for the said purpose petitioners preferred Exts.P8 and P9, representations to respondent No.3. Learned counsel states that though representations were forwarded to the Village Officer (respondent No.4) for necessary action, no action has been taken and respondent N.4 is taking the view that no further action is required on Exts.P8 and P9, representations since executing court has dismissed E.P.No.44 of 2009 and E.A.No.601 of 2009. I have heard learned Government Pleader who took notice for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. I have gone through Ext.P4, compliance report and the impugned orders (Exts.P6 and P7). The decree directs respondent Nos.3 and 4 to evict respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the disputed puramboke land invoking provisions of the Land Conservancy Act. From Ext.P4, compliance report and the orders of the executing court it is seen that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have evicted encroachers from the disputed puramboke land and has put up new survey stones after re-fixing the same with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor and a notice board also was exhibited showing that any trespasser into the the said WP(C) No.24358/2010 3 property will be prosecuted as provided under law. The decree as such has been complied by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and at any rate, there is nothing on record to show that there was willful disobeyance of the decree so that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are to be proceeded as provided under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). 3. Learned counsel made a fervent plea to issue direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to dispose of Exts.P8 and P9, representations. Learned counsel submitted that this Court has to do so under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Now the question before me is whether there was any willful disobeyance of the decree as stated under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code which executing court found in the negative and I found, there is no reason to interfere. I make it clear that if petitioners are entitled to any reliefs as prayed for in Exts.P8 and P9, representations it will be open to them to pursue for such reliefs before the appropriate authority. With the above observation, Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks