IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2622 of 2009()
1. MULLIKULANGARA DEVI KSHETHRA BHARANA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE,MAVELIKKARA.
4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
5. C.K.RADHAKRISHNA PANICKER,
For Petitioner :SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :20/11/2009
O R D E R
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No.2622 of 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009
JUDGMENT
A.K.Basheer, J.
This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by
the learned Single Judge in R.P.No.1081 of 2009 in W.P.(C)
No.17794 of 2008.
2. The writ petition was filed by respondent No.5 herein
praying for issue of a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate
writ, direction or order to respondents 1 to 3 to remove the
unauthorised structures allegedly put up by the appellant with the
help of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengannur.
3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition
by judgment dated July 17, 2009 directing respondents 1 to 3 to
facilitate measurement of the property in question with notice to the
writ petitioner and the appellant. The learned Judge issued the
above direction pursuant to the agreement reached between the
parties. It was recorded by the learned Judge that the appellant had
W.A.No.2622 of 2009.
– 2 –
undertaken that the unauthorised structures would be demolished by
it, if it was found, on measurement of the property, that the
unauthorised structures were constructed on the puramboke land.
4. The appellant took exception to the above direction
issued by the learned Single Judge in the petition for review on the
plea that the learned Judge had failed to notice the tenor of the
undertaking given by the appellant. It was contended that the
undertaking was only in tune with the resolution passed by the
appellant-committee and therefore, the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge was liable to be reviewed. The contention was that the
appellant-committee had only agreed to get the property measured on
the basis of or with reference to the “old records” and not on the basis
of resurvey records. According to the appellant, the resurvey records
were faulty since the property of the appellant was wrongly shown as
part of road puramboke. This mistake in resurvey records had
occurred because the properties were not measured properly.
5. The learned Single Judge took the view that there was
no merit in the said contention and dismissed the review petition.
W.A.No.2622 of 2009.
– 3 –
Hence this writ appeal.
6. When this writ appeal was taken up for consideration
on the previous occasion, it was brought to our notice that pursuant
to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the property had
been reportedly measured by the authority concerned. Learned
Government Pleader sought time to get instructions from the officer
concerned and the case was accordingly adjourned.
7. Today, when the case is taken up for further
consideration, learned Government Pleader submits that the
Tahsildar, Mavelikkara had already measured the property on
September 22, 2009 pursuant to the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge.
8. It is seen from the report of the Tahsildar that on
measurement of the land in question, which is situated in
Resurvey.No.211/1 of Block 10 of Thekkekara Village, it has been
found that the appellant has encroached 81 sq.metrs. of road
puramboke. Similarly the owner of the land bearing Resurvey
No.36/16 of Block 99, has also encroached 4 sq.mtrs. of the
W.A.No.2622 of 2009.
– 4 –
above puramboke land. It is further revealed from the report, which
is made available for our perusal, that the measurement was carried
out in the presence of the writ petitioner as well as the appellant and
with reference to the resurvey records. We do not propose to make
any observation on the above report or the contents thereof.
9. In our view, this writ appeal can be disposed of
without considering the merit of any of the contentions raised by the
appellant at this stage, since the writ appeal, as it is, has become
infructuous, especially in view of the intervening development
referred to by us. The appellant has to necessarily pursue the
remedy available to it in accordance with law.
10. Learned senior counsel points out that the appellant
has already approached the District Collector, Alappuzha and
submitted Annexure XI representation highlighting its grievances
and requesting for necessary action. It will be open to the appellant
to pursue the remedy available to it in accordance with law. We make
it clear that we have not considered the merit of the contentions raised
by the parties in this appeal.
W.A.No.2622 of 2009.
– 5 –
11. The Tahsildar shall ensure that copy of the report and
sketch prepared by him are made available to the appellant as well as
the writ petitioner within seven days from today. It shall be served
on the parties under proper acknowledgement.
Writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice
A.K. Basheer,
Judge
vns