V.Albert vs. The Executive Officer / Monitoring Committee

Facts

The petitioner, V. Albert, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Executive Officer/Monitoring Committee of Kavalkinaru Town Panchayat (first respondent) to take action against unauthorized construction by the second respondent, Packiya Selvam, on land bearing Survey Nos. 1760/7 and 1760/8 in Kavalkinaru Village. The petitioner's representation dated March 4, 2024, highlighted the alleged encroachment. The first respondent, through written instructions, confirmed that the second respondent has been in possession and utilizing the property for approximately 36 years. The instructions also noted a civil suit (O.S.No. 110/2023) pending before the District Munsif, Valliyoor, concerning the property, and that the Town Panchayat's order in this matter is subject to the outcome of the civil litigation.

Held

The Court noted the written instructions from the first respondent, which confirmed that the second respondent has been in possession and utilizing the property bearing Survey Nos. 1760/7 and 1760/8 for approximately 36 years. The instructions also revealed the pendency of a civil suit, O.S.No. 110/2023, before the District Munsif, Valliyoor, concerning the property. The Court directed the first respondent to take necessary action regarding the encroachment in accordance with law, subject to the progress of the ongoing civil litigation. Consequently, the writ petition was closed in light of this order. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the unauthorized construction claim but deferred action pending the civil suit's outcome.

Key Issues

1. Whether the first respondent is obligated to take action against the alleged unauthorized construction by the second respondent on Survey Nos. 1760/7 and 1760/8, Kavalkinaru Village, in light of the pending civil suit (O.S.No. 110/2023)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a direction for action against unauthorized construction. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments beyond the prayer in the writ petition. Revenue/State's contention: The first respondent, through written instructions, indicated that the second respondent has been in possession for approximately 36 years and that there is a pending civil suit (O.S.No. 110/2023) concerning the property. The respondent stated that any action would be subject to the progress of the civil litigation and that a final order cannot be passed without the suit's outcome.