IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 3899 of 2000(L) ---------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. KOCHU KANDAN, MAITHANIMOLATHU, KODIKUTHUMALA, ASOKAPURAM P.O., ALUVA. 2. MOHAMMED KUNJU, S/O. ABDUL KADIR, KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE, ASHIQUE MANZIL, EDATHALA NORTH P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT COCHIN. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK, ALUVA. 4. SURESH S/O. SYAMALA, CHELAKKATTIL HOUSE, MAITHANI MOLATHU, EDATHALA NORTH P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.NARAYANA PILLAI SRI.P.VISWANATHAN SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR SRI.ANTO SABASTIAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T. MAHMOOD THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 3899 of 2000 JUDGMENT The petitioners and counsel absent. Dismissed for default. 18.1.2008 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.6407/2000 IN O.P. NO.3899/2000 DISMISSED. 18.1.2008 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 3899 of 2000 ================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance put forward by the petitioners in this original petition is that certain properties which the petitioners allegedly use as access to their property are being assigned to the 4th respondent without considering the applications of the petitioners for assignment. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the records leading to the decision of respondents 1 to 3 to assign on registry the Govt. Puramboke land Comprised in Re.Sy. No.136/6 in Aluva East Village of Aluva Taluk to the 4th respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. (ii) to declare that the petitioners have every right to use the Govt. Puramboke land in Re.Sy. No.136/6 of Aluva East Village for their access to their own properties. (iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 not (sic) assign the Government Puramboke land extending 3.80 Ares in Aluva East Village to any person other than the petitioners. (iv) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to assign the Govt. Puramboke land comprised in Re.Sy. No.136/6 of Aluva East Village to the petitioners. (v) to issue any other writ, declaration, order or direction appropriate in the circumstances of the case.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it is categorically stated that the 1st petitioner does not have any property in the particular survey number in question. As far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned it is admitted that the 2nd petitioner owns 7.40 Ares of land 2 in survey No.136/4, but he is remitting tax only in respect of 4.05 Ares of land. Regarding the averment of the petitioners that the property which is used as passage to the 2nd petitioner's property is being assigned to the 4th respondent, in the counter affidavit it is stated thus; “4. It is submitted (sic) on the western side of the 2nd petitioner's property lies the Government Poramboke extending 3.80 Ares and through this property there is a pathway with a width of 3 mts. which is used up by the 2nd petitioner and others. The passage though this Poramboke was not obstructed. The 2nd petitioner and others are still using this pathway to reach their properties. The petitioners have not submitted any application for the assignment of the above Poramboke land in this office. 5. It is submitted that the 4th respondent, encroached the Poramboke land and constructed a hut in it. He encroached only a part of the Government land leaving the pathway unobstructed. The land used as pathway was not encroached by the 4th respondent. And when the petitioners complaint reached in this office through the Revenue Divisional Officer, necessary enquiries were made and site inspection were done and the report was submitted to Revenue Divisional Officer. It is true that the 4th respondent encroached a portion of Government land. But the submission put up by the 1st petitioner stating that, due to the above said encroachment the pathway to his property is obstructed is not correct. Because the 1st petitioner does not own or possess any land adjoining to the Government Poramboke. When the petition received in this office from the Revenue Divisional Officer, report was sought from Village Officer, Aluva East. And the Village Officer after making necessary enquiries submitted the report before Tahsildar Aluva (3rd respondent) on 14.3.2000. It is clearly known from the Village Officer's report that the 1st petitioner does not own and possess any land adjacent to the Government Poramboke and has no right to complaint (sic) against the unlawful encroachment. Even though there is encroachment in the Government Poramboke, no obstruction had occurred to the 2nd petitioner's or the adjoining land owners. As a Revenue Official the Village Officer had done his duty within the time and submitted the report as instructed by the Tahsildar, Aluva. And the Tahsidlar, Aluva reported the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi. Hence the contention of the petitioner that the Revenue authorities does (sic) not act upon the matter is not correct and is against facts.” 3. In view of the above specific averments in the counter 3 affidavit I am not satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the original petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 3899 of 2000-L ================== J U D G M E N T 6th October, 2009