IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 1235 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14685/2011 Dated 26/07/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. JOSE, S/O. AUGUSTHY, AGED 43 YEARS, POOTHAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SUNIL, S/O. AUGUSTHY, POOTHAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. REJI, S/O. AUGUSTHY, POOTHAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KATTAPPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KATTAPPANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KATTAPPANA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-1: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE LAND. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1235 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellants approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition challenging the proceedings taken by the Panchayat asking the 'father' of the appellants/petitioners to desist from the activities sought to be pursued in respect of the property, which was surrendered by him for the construction of a bus stand. 2. In fact, the Panchayat wanted to construct a bus stand, with regard to which a notification was issued, inviting willingness of the public, who could sell the property. Availing the opportunity, the father of the petitioners, who was having nearly 3 acres of land, surrendered a portion of his land, which was without having any patta, so that he could make use of the remaining property, by enjoying the same in a better manner, once the bus stand was constructed by the Panchayat. Accordingly, necessary papers were executed and the property was surrendered to the Panchayat. The Panchayat took over the property and it was revealed that the bus stand is also constructed therein. WA.1235/11 2 3. While so, the Panchayat observed that part of the above property, now exclusively vested with the Panchayat was sought to be repossessed by the father of the petitioners/appellants with the aid and assistance of the petitioners/appellants and in such circumstances, Exhibit P6 notice was issued by the Panchayat on 16.5.2011 asking the father of the petitioners/appellants to refrain from encroaching into the property belonging to the Panchayat. On receipt of Exhibit P6, the petitioners/appellants filed Exhibit P8 representation before the Panchayat and approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition, without impleading the 'father' in the party array. On receipt of notice issued from this Court, the Panchayat entered appearance and filed a detailed counter affidavit pointing out the sequence of events and the steps being pursued by the petitioners and their father. It was after considering the merits of the case that the learned Single Judge declined interference and dismissed the Writ Petition as per judgment dated 26.7.2011, which is under challenge in this Writ Appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length. 5. Obviously, Exhibit P6 has been issued in the name of the father of the appellants, who has no grievance against the same. WA.1235/11 3 There is absolutely no explanation from the part of the appellants as to why the proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P6 notice issued to the 'father' of the appellants were subjected to challenge without impleading him in the party array. The finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge on merits is well supported by reasons. That apart, we also find that the case was bad for non-jointer of necessary parties as well. In the above circumstances, no interference is warranted and the appeal is dismissed accordingly. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs