IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 37135 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MR.SAJEEV JAMES, S/O.CHACKO, PADATHIL HOUSE, KODUVELI KARA, KADIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SMT.SHERLY THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, PINNAVU. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D., THODUPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO 37135/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. SALE DEED NO.4973/04 DT. 14.12.04 OF SRO KARIKODE EXT.P2. LAND TAX RECEIPT DT. 2.11.07 EXT.P3. ENCUMBERANCE CERTIFICATE DT. 23.1.07 EXT.P4. COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR DT. 20.11.06 EXT.P5. COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER DT. 1.1.07 EXT.P6. COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EXT.P7. COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 37135 OF 2007-U ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner purchased 4.5 ares (10 cents) of land from one Justin Cyriac on 14.12.2004. It is situated on the side of Thodupuzha -Karimannur road. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing any notification and without invoking the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, respondents 2 and 3 encroached into his property and took away an extent of 1.14 ares of land for which he was not paid any compensation at all. 2. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that Thodupuzha-Karimannur road is a major District road and it is passing through the boundary of the petitioner's property and the road is having an average width of 12 meters (38 ft.) which came into existence years back. The averment that the road was having only 15 ft. width was denied. The further allegation that the road was widened to make it 35 ft. wide is also denied. It is contended that within a span of 10 years there was no widening of the road or any land acquisition proceedings. It was further contended that in front of the petitioner's property there was a dip and the said dip was raised to the W.P.(C)No.37135/07 -2- height of the road by filling earth. It was also contended that before doing the work , the Superintendent, Survey Department demarcated the road 'purambokku' and the road was filled up with earth and there was no encroachment. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit contending that the averments contained in the counter affidavit are false. I do not think it is necessary to consider the contentions raised by the parties on its merits. Admittedly, no notification under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. Even according to the petitioner, the Officer of the PWD trespassed into the property in his possession. A reading of the averments in the petition as well as the counter shows that the petitioner is claiming title over a strip of property over which the Government is also claiming right. Whether it is Government land or registered land and whether the petitioner has perfected title or adverse possession over the property, etc. are all matters which can be decided only in a property constituted suit, as complicated facts and law cannot considered in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for the redressal of his grievances, this writ petition is disposed of. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn