IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33475 of 2006(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S.MOHANAN NAIR, S/O.SIVARAMA PILLAI, CHANGALIPPALLIL HOUSE, KARAVOOR P.O.,PIRAVANTHOOR VIA, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, PUNALUR. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR. 3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS) SUB DIVISION, T.B.JUNCTION, PUNALUR. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. PONNACHAN, S/O.GEORGE, EZHIYATH VEEDU, KARAVOOR P.O., PATHANAPURAM. 7. SIVAPRASAD, PUTHENPRAYIL, KARIKUZHY, KARAVOOR P.O., PATHANAPURAM. ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R6 & R7 SRI.JOSEPH T.JOHN FOR R6 & R7 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.33475/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY DEED NO.345 9/1967 DT 17.6.1967 ISSUED BY THE PATHANAPURAMSUB REGISTRY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 29.1.89 SUBMITTED TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR PUBLIC WORKS BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE HON'BLE MINSTER FOR PWD BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 31.10.06 SUBMITTED TO THETAHSILDAR. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DT 1.11.06 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO TAHSILDAR. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 25.11.06 SUBMITTED TO TAHSILDAR BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 16.11.06 SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL MLA BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 29.11.06 SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 6.12.06 SUBMTTED TO THE SECRETARY, PEROVANTHOOR PANCHAYAT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR EVICTION DT 8.12.06 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.1.2008 IN OS 402/2006 BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR. ADDITIONAL EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BEARING NUMBER B6.LC/49/06 DT 12.5.11. ADDITIONAL EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BEARING NUMBER A1 48/07 DT 15.6.11 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXTS. OF R6 EXT.R6(a): TRUE COPY OF THEPLAINT DT 20.12.06 OS 402/2006 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. WPC NO.33475/06 -2- EXT.R6(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 10.1.08 IN OS 204/2006 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXT.R6(c): TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, AS 24/08 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA DT 4.2.08. EXT.R6(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DT 3.8.09 ISSUED BY PIRAVANTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(e): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 11.1.2011 ISSUED BY PIRAVANTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(f): TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DT 11.3.05. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33475 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner says that he owns 44 cents of property on the strength of Ext.P1 title deed. According to the petitioner, the property is at Karavoor Junction on the western side of Alimukku Achankovil road. 2. His case is that respondents 6 and 7 have constructed buildings on the side of the road, as a result of which, his access to the public road is completely blocked. He made representations to the official respondents and inspite of having issued Ext.P10 notice under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, neither did the official respondents evict the encroachment nor did they take any further action in the matter. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed. 3. It appears from the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent that during the pendency of this writ petition, notices were issued to the party respondents under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, which was challenged by them before this Court in WP(C) No. 26477/11. Though this court in the judgment WPC No. 33475/06 :2 : rendered on 4/10/11 declined to interfere with the notices issued, the aforesaid respondents were given liberty to file replies to the notices issued and the 3rd respondent was directed to hear the parties including the petitioner herein and finalise the proceedings. Learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that accordingly replies were filed and the 3rd respondent scheduled a hearing of the parties on 21/11/2011. Though all the three parties were present, the hearing did not conclude on that day. 4. Now that the aforesaid proceedings have already been initiated and as the 3rd respondent is seized of the issue, at this stage, I consider it only appropriate that the 3rd respondent should conclude the proceedings by conducting a full fledged hearing of the parties hereto and pass final orders in the matter. In the said proceedings, if it is is disclosed that the property in the occupation of the party respondents herein are puramboke, which is liable to be evicted by the 3rd respondent, it is upto the said authority to take appropriate action as contemplated under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. On the other hand, if as pleaded in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, any portion of the WPC No. 33475/06 :3 : property in the possession of the party respondents is found to be that vested in the Panchayat, necessarily it is for such local authority to take such action in the matter. It is directed that the aforesaid proceedings shall be completed, at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp