IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32619 of 2008(G)
1. N.SANKARA PILLAI, KURUPPAM MADOM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR,
4. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHENGANNUR,
5. VILLAGE OFFICER, KURATTISSERY VILLAGE,
6. SECRETARY, MANNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
7. SREEMUTHARAMMA DEVI TEMPLE DEVASWOM,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :31/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P (C) No.32619 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 31st January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Non-implementation of Ext.P7 order led the
petitioner to file this writ petition.
2. According to the petitioner, the 7th respondent
made certain un-authorised constructions in the
puramboke land and that the same was liable for eviction.
He made Ext.P5 representation in this behalf before the
2nd respondent. No steps were taken on Ext.P5. At that
stage, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P (C)
No.1735/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by
Ext.P6 judgment rendered on 15th January, 2008 directing
that a decision on the representation shall be taken by the
Revenue Divisional Officer.
3. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer
inspected the land , heard the parties and passed Ext.P7
order on 30.5.2008. This order says that unauthorised
structures made by the 7th respondent in 3.30 ares of
puramboke land was liable to be evicted. The Tahsildar,
Chengannur, the 4th respondent, was directed to take
W.P (C) No.32619 of 2008
2
appropriate action under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.
In this writ petition what is complained of by the petitioner
is that not only further action based on Ext.P7 was not
initiated but also the 7th respondent is continuing further
constructions.
4. Notice has been served on the 7th respondent.
But no counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf. In
the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, the
Revenue Divisional Officer, who was issued Ext.P7 he says
that unauthorised structures are liable to be demolished
and occupants to be evicted. However, nothing has been
mentioned about the steps that the Tahsildar has taken
pursuance to the directions in Ext.P7 order. Obviously
there has been abdication of duty not only by the 3rd
respondent but also by the 4th respondent. In such
circumstances, petitioner is justified in his complaint.
5. Therefore, I direct that on production of a copy
of this judgment, respondents 3 and 4 will ensure that steps
are taken for the appropriate implementation of Ext.P7
order passed by the 3rd respondent. It is directed that
W.P (C) No.32619 of 2008
3
unauthorised occupants from 3.30 ares of land mentioned
in Ext.P7 will be evicted and possession will be resumed by
the aforesaid respondents, at any rate, within six weeks of
production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of
the writ petition.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
ma
/True copy/ P.A to Judge