IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 37485 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MOHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED KANNU RAWTHER, CHARUVILA VEEDU, KARIYAM P.O., PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE PATHANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR. ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37485 OF 2009 (E) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is conducting a jewellery shop in one of the rooms in the shopping complex owned by the 1st respondent Panchayat. His case is that certain people have encroached into the courtyard of the shopping complex and are occupying the same for business purposes. It is stated that as a result thereof, even the entry into the shopping complex is obstructed. 2. Petitioner submits that he made several complaints to the Secretary of the Panchayat and although the Secretary of the Panchayat also was satisfied about the correctness of the complaint, no effective action is initiated. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed praying for directing the 1st respondent to remove the unauthorised occupants and the encroachment in front of the shopping complex with the assistance of the 2nd respondent. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the 1st respondent Panchayat. The Secretary accepts the fact that there are unauthorised occupants in the courtyard of the WPC No. 37485/2009 :2 : shopping complex. It is stated that all efforts taken to remove the unauthorised persons failed and even though he approached the authorities, apparently for the political support enjoyed by the occupants, help is also not forthcoming. 4. It is stated that the Panchayat has addressed the KSEB to disconnect power supply to these encroachers by Ext.R1(A). Ext.R1(B) notice was issued to the unauthorised occupants to vacate the premises and public notice was also issued. Later requests were made to the 2nd respondent as also the District Collector for their assistance as well. It is further stated that on account of the steps taken by the Secretary, there was an attempt on his life as well. 5. From the facts, therefore, it is evident that certain unauthorised occupants have trespassed into the premises of the shopping complex of the Panchayat. They are carrying on business in the premises availing of even electricity supplied by the KSEB. The Panchayat has taken steps, but on account of various reasons, such steps could not be implemented by evicting the unauthorised occupants. In my view, once it is found that the persons who are occupying the premises of the shopping complex WPC No. 37485/2009 :3 : are unauthorised occupants, Panchayat is entitled to evict them. If the Panchayat needs the assistance of the 2nd respondent, it is always open to the Panchayat to seek such assistance and the 2nd respondent is bound to provide necessary assistance as well. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 1st respondent shall take effective steps for evicting the unauthorised occupants, and if necessary, it will be open to the 1st respondent to produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent, who shall thereupon provide necessary assistance to enable the 1st respondent to carry out the aforesaid direction. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp