IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36095 of 2007(V) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUNIL ELIAS, SON OF LATE K.S.ELIAS, KALATHIL, HOUSE NO.65/335, NICE GARDEN, NEAR P.J.ANTONY GROUND, PACHALAM, KOCHI-682012. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.THOMAS SRI.JOJO GEORGE SRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM. 2. UNNIKRISHNAN.D, RAM NIVAS, KONNANCHERI, AYAKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) FOR R2 GP. SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36095 of 2007(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1110/1998 DATED 26.3.1998 OF ERNAKULAM SUB REGISTRY OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 3523/1992 DATED 28.8.1992 OF THE ERNAKULAM SUB REGISTRY OFFICE. EXT.P3: TAX RECEIPT NO. 35 DATED 20.10.1997 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM TO ANWAR BADUSHA. EXT.P4: COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.465/98 DATED 11.03.1998 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.6.1998 OF THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR) KANAM TENANCY ABOLITION, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P6: TAX RECEIPT NO. 95 DATED 02.07.1998 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 2489/98 DATED 21.08.1998, ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH NO. 2083/98 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. MOP 7/253/98 DATED 14.10.1998 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 15.12.1999 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.12.1999 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12: COPY OF NOTICE DATED 12.02.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P13: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.1.2001 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P14: COPY OF TAXS RECEIPT DATED 3.7.2006 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P15: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.11.2007 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P16: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO. 4708246 DATED 22.09.2005 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P17: COPY OF NOTICE NO. A4-7889/07 DATED 26.7.2007 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.10.2006 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE OBJECTION STATEMENT DATED 10.08.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P20: COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENT DATED 26.10.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P21: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2007 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ........ // true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 36095 OF 2007 ----------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is as against Exhibits P21 proceedings of the first respondent. The objection taken by the petitioner is that in Exhibit P21, the Tahsildar has found that the petitioner has encroached into the property belonging to the second respondent and has constructed a house . Proceeding further, it is also stated in Ext. P21 that the parties should discuss and settle the matter in the manner indicated therein and that if any one has any complaint, the party concerned shall approach the civil Court. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the observations in Exhibit P21 amount to conclusive finding of encroachment and that the petitioner will be required to vacate from the area alleged to have been encroached. 2. Having considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by either side, I need only clarify that whatever observations have been made in Exhibit P21 will not amount to any finding on the civil rights of the parties concerned and if at all any party has any grievance against the other, that party has to approach the civil Court for redressal of his grievances. With this clarification, this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. dsn