IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15590 of 2006(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. ANILKUMAR,PANAYIL VEEDU, NEAR PLAMOODU, THEEKINMOODU, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RADHA, PANAYIL VEEDU, NEAR PLAMOODU, THEEKINMOODU, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VIJAYAKUMARI, W/O.SWARNAPPAN, PANAYIL VEEDU, NEAR PLAMOODU, THEEKINMOODU, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MANIYAN, PANAYIL VEEDU, NEAR PLAMOODU, THEEKINMOODU, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. RAJAN, PANAYIL VEEDU, NEAR PLAMOODU, THEEKINMOODU, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WPC No..15590/2006 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. BHANI.A, S/O.HANEEFA, TC 12/154, FATHIMA MANSION, NEAR PLAMMODU BRIDGE, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN FOR R.5 SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA FOR R.5 SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 21526 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No.15590/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF LAND ASSIGNMENT APPLICATION 473/2000 DATED 27/03/00. P2 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO. 1029/2004 FILED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LOK AYUKTA BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 04/08/04. P3 : COPY OF OBJECTION OF EXHIBITS FILED IN COMPLAINT NO.1029/04 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LOK AYUKTA BY THE PETITIONERS. P4 : COPY OF the ORDER DATED 06/03/2006 BY THE HONOURABLE LOK AYUKTA. P5 : COPY OF the NOTICE DATED 30/05/06 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R5(a) : COPY OF THE HANDWRITTENC OPY OF REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTOM DATED 03/01/2000. R5(b) : COPY OF THE PROCEEDIGNS OF THE RDO BEARING NO.J-231/2000/L.DIS. R5(c) : COPY OF THE NOTICE B6/1854/2000 DATED 18/03/2000 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE TAHSILDAR, TRIVANDRUM. R5(d) : COPY OF THE NOTICE B6/1854/2000 DATED 18/03/2000 ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER'S MOTHER by the TAHSILDAR, TRIVANDRUM. R5(e) : COPY OF THE NOTICE B6/1854/2000 DATED 18/03/2000 ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER BY TAHSILDAR, TRIVANDRUM. R5(f) : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 18/03/2000 ISSUED TO 4TH PETITIONER BY TAHSILDAR, TRIVANDRUM. R5(g) : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 18/03/2000 ISSUED TO 5TH PETITIONER BY TAHSILDAR, TRIVANDRUM. R5(h) : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, DATED NIL. R5(i) : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM ON 09/05/2002. R5(j) : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06/08/2004 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. R5(k) : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, TRIVANDRUM IN M.C.NO.115/2006. R5(l) : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.1199/2004 DATED 01/10/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, TRIVANDRUM. R5(m) :COPY OF the JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.15816/2006 DATED 29/08/2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.15590 & 21526 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T In both the writ petitions the order under challenge and sought to be enforced is common, which is passed by the Lok Ayukta directing the revenue authorities and the Corporation to remove unauthorised obstruction in the pathway. The applicant before the Lok Ayukta is the petitioner in WP(C) No.21526/06 and the contesting respondents therein are the petitioners in the connected writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.15590/06. Even though, petitioners in WP(C) No.15590/06 are challenging the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta to pass the order, which according to the petitioners is passed after dismissal of the civil suit, I do not think, there is any need to go to the authority of the Lok Ayukta to pass the impugned order because the photographs produced in this Court clearly show that among the constructions made, at least one is completely blocking the wide pathway available on the side of a canal. The case of the contesting petitioners is that it is a bund road, which obviously means that it is kept to be used by public along with the drainage canal. I do not think that the encroachers have any right to occupy W.P.(C) Nos.15590 & 21526 of 2006 -2- the land and obstruct public right of way, as is seen in the photographs produced in the Court. These writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of directing the RDO to conduct local inspection and remove the obstruction without any delay in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 138 of the Cr.PC. It will be open to the evicted persons to approach the revenue authorities for allotment of land. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg