IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17670 of 2009(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MR.AUGUSTINE, S/O.LATE GEORGE, KODUVELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTHADU P.O. BY ADVS. MR.BABU CHERUKARA, MR.ANZAR BASHEER. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- KADAMAKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PIZHALA P.O., REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 17670 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner asserts that he has independent title to an item of property, which, going by Ext.P3, has been identified as belonging to the Grama panchayat. While the panchayat asserted that on the strength of the report of the Village Officer, the petitioner appeared for a personal hearing on 16.3.2009, and wanted time to have the property measured out through the Village Officer on the basis of his documents. Since within two months he did not do that, panchayat issued Ext.P3 requiring the petitioner to return the possession of the area over which he had allegedly encroached. It was also notified in Ext.P3 that on failure to do so, panchayat would take possession of the property on 30.5.2009 in the presence of the Village Officer. For the reasons best known to them, the panchayat has not taken possession till now. But petitioner states that on receipt of Ext.P3, he made Ext.P4 on 26.5.2009, requiring one month's time to have the property measured out through the Village Officer. As on today, Wpc 17670/2009 2 the said one month also ends. But the petitioner is unable to show any material evidencing that he has taken any measure in accordance with law for having the property measured out by the revenue authorities. Under such circumstances, it would only be a luxury for the petitioner to seek indulgence of this court to defer any distress action till the petitioner can file a suit after the expiry of the statutory period merely on the strength of the fact that he has through his counsel issued an Advocate notice to the panchayat on 13.6.2009. Writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, without entering on merits or demerits of the rival claims to title, held out by the petitioner and panchayat. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/27/6