High Court Kerala High Court

Geevarghese George vs The Thazhakkara Grama Panchayath on 21 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Geevarghese George vs The Thazhakkara Grama Panchayath on 21 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14573 of 2008(I)


1. GEEVARGHESE GEORGE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE THAZHAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,

4. G.GEEVARGHESE, KOORANCHIRA PUTHENVEEDU,

5. THE STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.R.RANJINI

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.SASIKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :21/08/2008

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
               = =W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = = =
                            No. 14573 OF 2008 I
                    = = =


              Dated this the 21st day of August 2008


                           J U D G M E N T

The main prayer in this writ petition is for directing the 4th

respondent to remove the encroachment by demolishing the

compound wall constructed by him enclosing an area of 4 sq. mtrs.

of Panchayat road situated in R.S. No. 575/19 of Vettiyar Village.

2. In so far as this prayer of the petitioner is concerned, it is

seen that on an earlier occasion, in W.P.(C) No. 3961/08, while

disposing of the said writ petition by Ext. P8 judgment, this Court

issued a direction in the following terms:

“Considering the grievance that the measurement in
question was conducted without notice to the petitioner
and in his absence, I dispose of this Writ Petition
directing the fourth respondent to facilitate fresh
measurement of the property by a competent surveyor
with notice to the petitioner and the third respondent.

Once such a measurement is conducted and the
purambokeappropriate will
initiate
encroachment is identified,action fourth respondentfrom
the
for abating the
and evicting the petitioner
puramboke, if any, wrongfully possessed by him. This
judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner

W.P.(C) No. 14573 OF 2008
-2-

making application for assignment of the revenue
puramboke land in accordance with the relevant law.”

It is stated that in pursuance thereof a survey was conducted and

the petitioner has produced Exts. P9 and P10.

3. It is seen that complaining of disobedience of the direction

contained in the aforesaid judgment, Contempt Case No. 1017/08

was filed by the petitioner herein and that the said case was

disposed of by judgment dated 7.8.2008. In that judgment, the

submission of the Tahsildar that notice was given to the writ

petitioner in Ext. P8 judgment to vacate the premises since he was

found to be an encroacher of Panchayat puramboke land has been

recorded. Further submission that the notice was not obeyed and

therefore the Revenue Divisional Officer has been approached for

enforcing the order of eviction is also recorded. In view of the

above, there is no question of issuing any further direction as

sought for by the petitioner.

4. The other prayers in this writ petition are against assigning

the Panchayat land allegedly to be in the possession of the 4th

respondent. In so far as this issue is concerned, it is seen that in

Ext. P8 judgment, this Court has already directed that the aforesaid

judgment will not stand in the way of the 4th respondent from

W.P.(C) No. 14573 OF 2008
-3-

making an application for assignment of the Revenue puramboke

land in accordance with the relevant law.

5. According to 4th respondent despite the findings in the

surveys referred to above, the land in question is a Revenue

puramboke land and therefore he has made Ext. R4(c) application

before the 3rd respondent for the assignment of the land in

question. Though it is the contention of the petitioner that the land

in question is a Panchayat land and therefore is not assignable, I

think the apprehension of the petitioner that the possibility of

assignment is a premature one. Now that the 4th respondent has

made an application as above, it is for the authority concerned to

consider the same, with notice necessarily to the Panchayat and take

a decision thereon. If the relief now sought for is granted, this

Court will be rendering the direction in Ext. P8 judgment ineffective

and that cannot be done.

6. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the

matter, if any order adverse to him is passed on Ext. R4(c), I close

this writ petition.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-