IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28135 of 2009(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJAN JACOB, S/O. LATE G.C. CHACKO, AGED 53, NJALIYI HOUSE, POOVATHOLI P.O., MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.R.SUNIL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, MANIMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARIKATTOOR P.O., MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANIMALA POLICE STATION. R1 BY MR.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, S.C, R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.28135/2009-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 28/06/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 17/09/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 22/09/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 22/09/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.28135 OF 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner claims that an item of land belonging to his sister is being unauthorisedly projected by the Panchayat as belonging to it. The foundation for this situation is that when the petitioner, as the agent of his sister who is abroad, cut down a tree standing in that property, the Panchayat objected to its removal and also got a crime registered. 2. There is controversy between the parties as to whether the land is part of river puramboke or whether it is part of patta land held by the petitioner's sister. Following interim orders, the Panchayat has decided the issue with the help of survey being conducted by the revenue department. The revenue authorities have concluded that the tree was standing on river puramboke and not in the patta land of the petitioner's sister. 3. Therefore, the issue transforms to be one of disputed title. I do not deem it appropriate to have this issue left for the Tribunal for LSGIs to decide. This is a matter which the civil court has to decide. For that, the W.P.(C) No.28135/2009 2 petitioner or the sister may have to issue notice under the Panchayat Raj Act as seek relief through a civil court. 4. The timber in question is, as of now, retained by the Panchayat in its office and it has decided to auction off the timber and keep the money in an account. This decision should not have been taken. I say this because, this Court had ordered that status quo shall be maintained in relation to the timber. Therefore, the Panchayat should have waited for this Court to say as to what has to be done with the timber. 5. Taking into consideration, the requirement to issue a notice, it is ordered that the timber shall not be auctioned for a period three months from now, but, shall be kept safely by the Panchayat and parties would be governed by any interlocutory order that any civil court may issue regarding the management of the timber either by converting it by sale and retaining the proceeds, in interest generating deposits, or otherwise. All issues on merit on the question of title are left open. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge ps W.P.(C) No.28135/2009 3