High Court Kerala High Court

Madhavanunni vs The District Collector on 8 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Madhavanunni vs The District Collector on 8 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22222 of 2009(W)


1. MADHAVANUNNI, PADIPURAKKAL HOUSE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, NATTIKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

3. DIRECTOR PANCHAYATH SECRETARIAT,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.ANILKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :08/12/2010

 O R D E R
                        P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
                     -------------------------------
                    W.P.(C) No.22222 of 2009
                     -------------------------------
          Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner who is a resident of Nattika Grama

Panchayat has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the official

respondents to implement Ext.P5 order passed by the Honourable

Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and Ext.P10 order

passed by the Director of Panchayats by evicting the encroachers from

the Chettikkadavu road which is a road vested with the Nattika Grama

Panchayat. The pleadings disclose that aggrieved by the steps taken

by the Panchayat to evict the encroachers, the seventh respondent

has filed O.S.No.586 of 2010 and 9th respondent has filed O.S.No.1515

of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Chavakkad and that

the said suits are pending. It is also brought to my notice that though

O.S.No.1515 of 2001 was initially decreed ex parte, the ex parte

decree has been set aside by the court below. Apart from respondents

7 and 9, the other party respondents, against whom also steps had

been taken by the Nattika Grama Panchayat to remove the

encroachment, have not challenged the same before this Court or in

other proceedings. It is also not in dispute that the other party

respondents have already been evicted from the road poramboke. In

such circumstances, no further orders are called for in this writ petition

W.P.(C) No.22222 of 2009

2

except to direct that if the petitioner is desirous of getting himself

impleaded in the suits filed by respondents 7 and 9, it will be open to

him to move the court below where the suits are pending in that

regard. It is clarified that if in the said suits, interim orders have not

been passed restraining the local authority from evicting the

encroachers, it will be open to the local authority to evict them

notwithstanding the fact that suits are pending. Having regard to the

fact that the suit instituted by the 9th respondent is of the year 2001, I

direct the court below to try and dispose of the suit expeditiously and

in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

P.N. RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.

nj.