IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29979 of 2003(R)
1. S.K.MAMU, AGED 69 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD TALUK,
... Respondent
2. VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD I VILLAGE,
3. SAIDUTTY, S/O.LATE EAPU, THANAVU,
For Petitioner :SRI.H.BADARUDDIN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.29979 of 2003
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Prayer sought in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P8 series of
notices and Ext.P9 proceedings of respondents 1 & 2. The
petitioner also seeks a direction to restrain the respondents from
evicting the petitioner from the land comprised in Survey No.3127/1
in Block No.77 of Palakkad Village unless and until the dispute of
title is settled by a Civil Court.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner
is in occupation of 5×4 sq.m. of land comprised in the aforesaid
survey number. He was issued Ext.P8 show cause notice, calling
upon him to vacate from the premises. Finally, by Ext.P8(2), after
hearing the petitioner, Ext.P8 was confirmed, and he was requested
to vacate from the premises. Later by Ext.P9, fine of Rs.200/- was
also imposed on the petitioner. It is challenging these proceedings,
the writ petition has been filed.
3. Grounds raised in the writ petition show that the claim of
WP(C) No.29979/2003
-2-
the petitioner is that, the alleged puramboke land is a part of his
patta land, and that even if, Government have any right, the same
has been lost by the law of prescription and continuous and
uninterrupted occupation.
4. Documents relied on by the petitioner to establish his
title over the property are Exts.P1 to P7. These are licences,
Municipality receipts, electricity bills etc. None of these documents,
even by implication, suggest that the petitioner has title over the
property. If that be so, on the materials produced, the claim of the
petitioner that this is a part of his patta land, cannot be accepted.
5. In the light of the averments made in the counter
affidavit filed by the 1st respondent with a positive assertion that the
land in question is a puramboke land, which was encroached upon
by the petitioner, this Court cannot grant any of the reliefs sought
for in the writ petition.
Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed, and I do
so.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg