IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12658 of 2006(F) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SOUDHA, W/O.LATE MUSTHAFA, ATGED 40 YEARS, AYATH HOUSE, MAHILALAYAM JUNCTION, THOTTUMUGHAM, ALUVA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.VINOD SRI.N.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROAD SUB DIVISION, ALUVA, ERANAKULAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. * ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED 4. JOSE GEORGE, MAMPILLY HOUSE, THOTTUMUGHAM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. * ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/11/2006 IN I.A. NO.15355/2006. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 12658/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5325/1995. P2: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 20/11/2003 IN WPC. NO.31266/2003 AND WPC.NO.35551/2003. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/05/2004 IN WPC.NO.39367/2003. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06/08/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/08/2004 IN WPC.NO.2351/2004. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.D.O. DATED 27/05/2005. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 02/03/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1 (a):COPY OF LETTER DATED 28/08/2003 OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHIN. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 12658 of 2006 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Prayers sought in the writ petition are to quash Ext.P7 and to restrain respondents 1 to 3 from demolishing and evicting the petitioner from her residential building situated in Re-survey No.74/2 of Aluva East Village, Aluva Taluk. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 is the sale deed in favour of her deceased husband, as per which, property comprised in Re-survey No.74/2 was purchased by him. It is stated that in the said property, the petitioner and her children are residing in a hut constructed by her. It is stated that at the instance of the additional fourth respondent, proceedings were initiated and the first respondent issued order requiring her eviction. W.P.(C) No.12658/2006 : 2 : 3. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, as contained in Ext.P2, though the matter was reconsidered, again orders of eviction were issued. That order was again challenged before this Court resulting in Ext.P3 judgment, where this Court took note of the submission on behalf of the respondents that the order was withdrawn and that a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was considered and a fresh order was issued, a copy of which is Ext.P4. 4. In Ext.P4, the first respondent found that a portion of the petitioner's building was in PWD puramboke land and that the petitioner did not produce any document to justify such occupation. She was, therefore, directed to demolish and remove the structure within 48 hours. Ext.P4 order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.23517/2004. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment, directing the petitioner to pursue appellate remedy within two weeks. W.P.(C) No.12658/2006 : 3 : 5. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent, who rejected the appeal by Ext.P6 order. Petitioner pursued the matter by filing a revision before the third respondent, which was also rejected by Ext.P7 order. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition was filed. 6. Stand taken by the petitioner is that she has not trespassed into any puramboke land as alleged and that the objectionable structure is situated in her property comprised in Re-survey No.74/2 of Aluva East Village. It is also her case that her property was not measured by any of the respondents before concluding that she has trespassed into the said puramboke land. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, in which, it is alleged that the petitioner has encroached into the road puramboke, constructed a portion of her building in that area and has rented out that portion to strangers. It is stated that it was therefore that the impugned proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The W.P.(C) No.12658/2006 : 4 : additional fourth respondent also has filed a counter affidavit, which in effect, supports the stand taken by the first respondent. 8. As already stated above, Exts.P4, P6 and P7 are the proceedings impugned in this writ petition. Ext.P1 is the title deed of the petitioner, which shows that her title is in respect of the property comprised in Re-survey No.74/2 of Aluva East Village. Ext.P6 is the order of the second respondent rejecting the appeal against Ext.P4 order. Ext.P6 order shows that as per the report of the Tahsildar, the petitioner has made the objectionable construction in Re- survey No.70 which is a PWD road puramboke. In Ext.P7 also, it is stated that the construction is in Re-survey No.70 mentioned above. As already noticed, the petitioner has title over the property situated in Re-survey No.74/2 only. Apart from the averments in the petition that the petitioner has not made any construction in the puramboke land, petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate this plea. On the W.P.(C) No.12658/2006 : 5 : other hand, the impugned proceedings show that the respondents have inspected the land and it was on such inspection, they have concluded that there was trespass into puramboke land. In such circumstances, the findings contained in Exts.P4, P6 and P7 are being factual and the absence of any material produced by the petitioner to hold the proceedings to be erroneous for any reason, this Court has no option other than to uphold the same. In such circumstances, the writ petition lacks merit and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/08.06 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge