IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 261 of 2008(F) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.A.ABDUL LATHEEF, VARIKADAN HOUSE, PALLIPRAM, MARAMPILLY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (NH) SECTION, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SECTION, PERUMBAVOOR. 5. NOUSHAD, S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, PALLIPRAM, MARAMPILLY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. 6. NISHAD, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, PALLIPRAM, MARAMPILLY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. 7. ANSHAD, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, PALLIPRAM, MARAMPILLY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR FOR R5 TO 7 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 261/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PURAMBOKE LAND. P2. COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.17.4.07 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.13.7.07 FROM R4. P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C).No. 23392/07. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.11.9.97 OF R2. P7. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.10.10.07 TO R2. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R6A. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.16.10.84. B. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING. C. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH D. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. E. COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. E(SIC) COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.261 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining that despite Ext.P6 order of the Tahsildar, which itself was passed pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.(C). No.23392/07, respondents 1 to 4 are not taking steps to evict respondents 5 to 7 from the puramboke land encroached upon by them. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 took a contention that earlier in another writ petition, viz.,W.P.(C).No.21428/2008, this Court had directed the PWD authorities to hear the 5th respondent and pass orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition pointed out that in that writ petition the petitioner was not made a party although the 5th respondent very well knew that it was at the instance of the petitioner the proceedings for eviction were initiated. I also note that the judgment in that writ petition was rendered on the premise that the 5th respondent was not heard before the PWD authorities took action. But PWD authorities took action pursuant to Ext.P6 order in this writ petition, which was passed after hearing respondents 5 to 7 also. In the above circumstances, I passed the following order on 28.5.2009 in the writ petition. “This writ petition is filed seeking implementation of Ext.P6 order whereby the 2nd respondent Tahsildar has found that respondents 5 to 7 2 had encroached into puramboke land which needs to be evicted. Since the puramboke is a road puramboke, the matter was referred to the PWD for further proceedings for eviction. Petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that despite Ext.P6 order, no steps are being taken for eviction of respondents 5 to 7. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7 argued that in view of the judgment in WP(C) No.21428/08(A), Ext.P6 order cannot be implemented in so far as this Court has directed the PWD to treat the order for eviction as a show cause notice and to pass final orders pursuant thereto. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the said writ petition was filed by the 5th respondent long after he received notice in this writ petition and knowing fully well that the petitioner was effectively pursuing the action for eviction of respondents 5 to 7 from the puramboke land, the 3rd respondent has deliberately filed the writ petition without impleading the petitioner as a party to the same and without challenging Ext.P6 order which has become final. I find considerable merit in the said contention. Further, I am of opinion that in so far as Ext.P6 order finding that respondents 5 to 7 had encroached into the puramboke land has become final which order has been passed with notice to respondents 5 to 7, the action of the PWD is only consequential and a separate hearing may not be necessary for eviction. That being so, I am inclined to suo motu review the judgment in WP(C) No.21428 of 2008. Post on 01.06.2009 along with WP(C) No.21428 of 2008-A for suo motu review of that judgment.” 2. An affidavit has been filed by the Taluk Surveyor. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7 submitted that they may be given some time to vacate the properties in question and undertook to vacate the premises within that time. In view of the said request and undertaking, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The undertaking of respondents 5 to 7 is recorded. Respondents 5 to 7 shall vacate the properties and give vacant possession of the properties in their possession to respondents 3 and 4 within three months from today, failing which respondents 1 to 4 shall take 3 coercive proceedings to evict them from the land forthwith. In view of the above, the proceedings for suo motu review of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.21428 of 2008 is dropped. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge