Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 39021 OF 2022 PETITIONERS:
1 K.N.RAJAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KANANKUNNATH, SHATHANPARA P.O, THOTTIKKANAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 619.
2 SAJEEV SEBASTIAN, AGED 48 YEARS S/O SEBASTIAN, KONDATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, SHATHANPARA, PUTHADY P.O, RAJAPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 619.
BY ADV RAJAN VISHNURAJ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, PAINAV P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 603.
3 SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DEVIKULAM CIRCULAR ROAD, DEVIKULAM TALUK, KANNAN DEVAN HILLS, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685613.
4 VILLAGE OFFICER, POOPPARA VILLAGE, POOPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 619.
5 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, NH DIVISION,MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686661.
6 SHANTHANPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, SHANTHANPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 619 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
7 SECRETARY, SHANTHANPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, SHANTHANPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 619.
8 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SHANTHANPARA POLICE STATION, MUNNAR-KUMILY HIGHWAY, SANTHANPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685619.
WP(C) NO. 39021 OF 2022 2 9 BIJU, S/O. KUMARAN, PUTHANPURAKKAL, POOPPARA P.O, POOPPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI-685619.
10 THASKAND S.N, S/O. NAGAYYA, S.N.P HOUSE, POOPPARA P.O, POOPPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI-685619.
BY ADV C.A.NAVAS SRI.JAFFER KHAN [SR.GP] THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 39021 OF 2022 3 JUDGMENT The petitioners complain that, in spite of Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings initiated by the 4th respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act (‘KLC’ Act for short), against respondents 9 and 10 +– who are alleged to have encroached into river “puramboke” area and made illegal constructions – no action has been taken thereon until today. They, however, concede that, when the Panchayat issued Exts.P7 and P8 notices to the said respondents to demolish their alleged illegal constructions, they have been able to obtain Ext.P11 interim order against it from the learned Tribunal for Local
Self
Government
Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No.738 of 2022.
2.
The petitioners argue that, however,
WP(C) NO. 39021 OF 2022 4 Ext.P11 would not be a bar for the official respondents from taking action against respondents 9 and 10 under the ‘KLC Act’, which they themselves have initiated through Exts.P3 and P4. They thus pray that they be directed to do so, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
3.
The afore submissions of Sri.Rajan Vishnuraj – learned counsel for the petitioners, were answered by Sri.Navas – learned counsel appearing for respondents 9 and 10, saying that when Ext.P11 order is in effect and the appeal filed by his client against Exts.P7 and P8 is still pending, it would not be possible for the official respondents to act even under the ‘KLC’ Act. He added that, in fact, the area in question is full of constructions, which is
WP(C) NO. 39021 OF 2022 5 being done even now by other persons, but that the Authorities have chosen to target only his clients, knowing fully well that they have acted within the parameters of law. He concluded his submissions saying that, in fact, no eviction under the ‘KLC Act’ is possible against his clients because Ext.R9(a) order from the competent Civil Court would stand against any such action.
4.
Sri.Joy George – learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Panchayat, affirmed that Exts.P7 and P8 notices were issued by his client after noticing that respondents 9 and 10 are making illegal constructions. He submitted that, however, since Ext.P11 is now pending, his clients are incapacitated from taking any further action.
WP(C) NO. 39021 OF 2022 6 5.
Sri.Jaffer Khan – learned Senior Government Pleader, on the other hand, affirmed that Exts.P3 and P4 have already been issued and that they have not been interdicted by any Authority until now. He explained that Ext.P11 order has been issued by the learned Tribunal only as against the action of the Panchayat proposed as per Exts.P7 and P8 and not against the action proposed under the ‘KLC Act’. He, therefore, submitted that necessary action under the said Act will be taken forward against respondents 9 and 10.
6.
When I evaluate and consider the afore submissions, it is evident that 4th respondent has already initiated action against respondents 9 and 10 through Exts.P3 and P4. There does not appear to be any legal impediment in continuing
WP(C) NO. 39021 OF 2022 7 further action under the afore orders, though the submissions of the said respondents is that Ext.P9(a) would stand in the way of it being proceeded with.
7.
I am afraid that these are not issues which this Court must concern itself with at the first instance, since it is for the competent Authorities to take necessary action as per law, adverting to all relevant and germane inputs.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition to the limited extent of leaving liberty to the official respondents to pursue action pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4, subject to any orders that may have been issued by competent Civil Courts and adverting to Ext.P9(a) order, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioners
WP(C) NO. 39021 OF 2022 8 and to the Panchayat, as also to respondents 9 and 10; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action without any avoidable delay.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS
WP(C) NO. 39021 OF 2022 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39021/2022 PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13.10.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO.13/22 DATED 13.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO.12/22 DATED 13.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO 10TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO. B3- 401/18(1) DATED 27.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO. B3- 401/18(1) DATED 27.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. SC3- 3452/2022 DATED 10.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. SC3- 3452/2022 DATED 10.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.11.2022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS NO. 2-4 AND 8.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION AND ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE PUZHA PURAMBOKE LAND BY THE 9TH AND 10TH RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2022 IN APPEAL NO.738 OF 2022.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R 9 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.44/1993 DATED 23.06.1993 OF HONOURABLE MUNSIFFS COURT,
WP(C) NO. 39021 OF 2022 10 DEVIKULAM EXHIBIT R9 (B) TRUE COPY OF GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 26.07.2017 EXHIBIT R9 (C) TRUE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILL RECEIPT DATED NIL EXHIBIT R9 (D) TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA DATED 12.04.2012 EXHIBIT R9 (E) TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 12.04.2012 ISSUED BY FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA EXHIBIT R9 (F) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI ON BEHALF OF THE 9TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE POOPARA PANCHAYATH DATED 15.11.2022