IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1149 of 2004(J)
1. PORKULAM GRAMA PANCHYATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
4. KADAVALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
5. ABDUL HAKKIM K.T., S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY,
6. MOIDUNNY, S/O. MUHAMMED NUNAYIL,
7. A.C.FATHIMA, W/O. LATE M.A.MUHAMMED,
8. C.P.MOIDUNNYKUTTY, S/O. AYYUTTY,
9. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJO PAUL
For Respondent :SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :22/01/2009
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.1149 of 2004
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 22nd day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
The issue involved in this case is a dispute between the
two Panchayats raising rival claims for an extent of 5.87 acres of
land in Sy.Nos.110 and 111/2 of Karikkad Village. This property
was originally situated in the petitioner Panchayat. Subsequently
there is a bifurcation in the year 1961 by which the Kadavallur
Panchayat was formed. The property in dispute is now situated
within the territorial limits of Kadavallur Panchayat. It is not
disputed that the said property was acquired by the erstwhile Cochin
Government for a cattle ground for the petitioner Panchayat in the
year 1113 M.E. and the property was in the ownership and
enjoyment of the petitioner Panchayat. The prayer in the writ
petition is to quash Ext.P18 order and to declare that the said
property belonged to the petitioner Panchayat.
2. When the dispute came up for consideration before
this Court in an earlier writ petition, this Court directed the
Government by its order dated 4.2.2002 in O.P.No.28383 of 2001 to
examine the dispute between the two Panchayats in exercise of its
W.P.(C) NO.1149 of 2004
2
powers under Section 282 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
Accordingly the Government examined the matter and after hearing
both sides, the Government rightly held that though the property
was acquired by the petitioner Panchayat, subsequently by the
bifurcation of the Panchayat into two and on bifurcation since the
property is situated within the territorial limits of the newly
constituted Kadavallur Panchayat, there is no scope and there is no
merit in the contention of the petitioner Panchayat that the property
still vests with them.
3. I have examined Ext.P18 order passed by the
Government and I find that the order was passed after examining all
factual and legal aspects. There is no illegality or impropriety in
passing the said order. Therefore, the writ petition challenging
Ext.P18 order does not merit consideration.
Writ petition is dismissed.
HARUN-UL-RASHID
(JUDGE)
vns