IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 16281 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- N.RADHAKRISHNAN, DRISAYA ADVERTISING VIGIL HOUSE, G.47, PANAMPILLY NAGAR ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.S.NIRMAL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER , KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE PRESIDENT , GRAMA PANCHAYAT THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM. 6. DEPUTY DIRECTOR PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 16281 OF 2008 - L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd June 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext. P6, an order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had made Ext. P1 application to the respondent Panchayat for the installation of an advertisement board which was allowed by the Panchayat by Ext. P2. Thereupon, the petitioner entered into necessary agreement with the Panchayat and the work also commenced immediately thereafter. While so, Ext. P4 stop memo was issued by the 3rd respondent on the basis that the land where the work was undertaken is revenue puramboke and according to the petitioner, the structures put up by him were demolished on 23.12.2007. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that thereupon he submitted Ext. P5 representation to the 2nd respondent for permission to install the board at the site in question, at least for a period of 2 years. W.P.(C) No. 16281 OF 2008 -2- However, the same was rejected by Ext. P6. As the petitioner had no other option, he requested the Panchayat to refund the amount and the Panchayat also did not respond to the application so made. It is is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext. P6 and a direction to permit the petitioner to install the board or in the alternative to direct the Panchayat to refund the amount realised from him. 4. From the facts it is obvious that Ext. P4 stop memo has been issued on the basis that the land is revenue puramboke and that the Panchayat had no authority to permit installation of a board in the revenue puramboke land. The Panchayat contends for the position that the property has been used by the Panchayat for the last several years and it is for that reason permission has been granted still ownership of the land is the issue in dispute. Since it is a disputed question of fact this Court will not be justified in interfering with the matter. 5. The fact remains that the petitioner had made substantial payments and also investments, but, however, he is not in a position to install the board. He has raised a claim that he is W.P.(C) No. 16281 OF 2008 -3- entitled to be compensated by the Panchayat for the loss that he has suffered. But, in my view, that is a remedy which the petitioner can seek only in a civil suit. However, he is entitled to be refunded the amount which the petitioner has paid in pursuance to Ext. P2 agreement and acknowledged in Ext. P3 receipt. This the Panchayat shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month of production of a copy of this judgment. I clarify that I leave open all other claims of both the Panchayat and the claim of the petitioner for compensation from the Panchayat. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-