IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 17784 of 2007(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. M.CHANDRAN, S/O.M.V.RAMAN NAIR, "SREE CHANDRA" HOUSE, PO THAVANUR, PIN- 679573. 2. M.T.JAYASREE, W/O.M.CHANDRAN, "SREE CHANDRA" HOUSE, P.O.THAVANUR, PIN- 679573. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. TAHSILDAR, PONNANI. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C)NO.17784/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1(a)& P1(b):- COPIES OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEEDS. P2(a),P2(b), P2(c) & P2(d):- COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN DURING 2005. P3:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON 1.8.05. P4(a), P4(b):- COPIES OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE PETITIOENRS BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4(C):- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6(a) &P6(b):- COPIES OF THE APPLICATIONS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMTITED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE IST RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT P10:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.17784 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners reside in their property by the side of the Bharathapuzha river. In between the petitioners' property and the Bharathapuzha there is some Government land. The petitioners constructed a retaining wall in the river bank to protect their property from soil erosion. The petitioners also applied for assignment of the Government land lying between the Bharathapuzha and the petitioners' property. The petitioners have filed this writ petition contending that without considering the petitioners' application for assignment, the respondents are taking steps to demolish the retaining wall constructed by the petitioners. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “1. Issue a Writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to assign the properties covered under Exhibit P6 series in favour of the petitioners as lease as recommended under Exhibit P8 reports and also the report dated 30-03-06 and the directions of 1st respondent under Exhibit P9. W.P.(C)No.17784 of 2007 -2- 2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent not to demolish the retention wall put up by the petitioners on the northern and western boundaries of their properties pending assignment pursuant to Exhibit P6 series.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent contending that the petitioners have encroached into the river puramboke and constructed the retaining wall. Therefore the respondents are entitled to resume the land from the petitioners' possession, for which only steps have been taken, is his contention. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As far as the question of assignment of the land is concerned, I am of opinion that, it involves a question as to whether the river puramboke can be assigned. In fact there is a decision of this court which prohibits assignment of river puramboke. The Government has also issued orders prohibiting assignment of river puramboke. It is up to the petitioners to seek their remedies in respect of the same appropriately. I am not expressing any opinion on merits on the contentions of the petitioners in that regard. But I am of opinion that, the respondents would not in any way be W.P.(C)No.17784 of 2007 -3- benefited by demolishing the retaining wall constructed by the petitioners. In fact it is to the advantage of the respondents to see that the retaining wall is retained to protect the river as well as the river banks. Therefore, I do not think that, it is in the public interest not to demolish the retaining wall. By interim order dated 11.06.2007, I permitted the respondents to take possession of the property in question subject to the result of the writ petition, but directed that the retaining wall shall not be demolished. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that, this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents not to demolish the retaining wall with liberty to take appropriate action in respect of the river puramboke. It would also be open to the petitioners to pursue their application for assignment appropriately. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/