IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15590 of 2006(E)
1. ANILKUMAR,PANAYIL VEEDU,
... Petitioner
2. RADHA, PANAYIL VEEDU,
3. VIJAYAKUMARI, W/O.SWARNAPPAN,
4. MANIYAN, PANAYIL VEEDU,
5. RAJAN, PANAYIL VEEDU,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
5. BHANI.A, S/O.HANEEFA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
For Respondent :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :05/06/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.15590 & 21526 of 2006
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 5th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
In both the writ petitions the order under challenge and sought
to be enforced is common, which is passed by the Lok Ayukta
directing the revenue authorities and the Corporation to remove
unauthorised obstruction in the pathway. The applicant before the
Lok Ayukta is the petitioner in WP(C) No.21526/06 and the
contesting respondents therein are the petitioners in the connected
writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.15590/06. Even though, petitioners in
WP(C) No.15590/06 are challenging the jurisdiction of the Lok
Ayukta to pass the order, which according to the petitioners is
passed after dismissal of the civil suit, I do not think, there is any
need to go to the authority of the Lok Ayukta to pass the impugned
order because the photographs produced in this Court clearly show
that among the constructions made, at least one is completely
blocking the wide pathway available on the side of a canal. The case
of the contesting petitioners is that it is a bund road, which obviously
means that it is kept to be used by public along with the drainage
canal. I do not think that the encroachers have any right to occupy
W.P.(C) Nos.15590 & 21526 of 2006
-2-
the land and obstruct public right of way, as is seen in the
photographs produced in the Court. These writ petitions are,
accordingly, disposed of directing the RDO to conduct local
inspection and remove the obstruction without any delay in exercise
of the powers conferred under Section 138 of the Cr.PC. It will be
open to the evicted persons to approach the revenue authorities for
allotment of land.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
jg