IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 5354 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
1 SREEJESH K.S.,
AGED 32 YEARS
KAVUPARAMBIL, KILLIMANGALAM P.O, THRISSUR 680 591
2 DIVAKARAN,
S/O.NARAYANAN, KUDUKKAKKUNNEL HOUSE, KUTHUPARA,
MINALUR P.O 680 581
BY ADVS.
I.DINESH MENON
SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION P.O, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR
680 003.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, THALAPPILLY P.O, WADAKKENCHERY,
THRISSUR 680 582.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERINGANDUR/MINALUR, GROUP VILLAGE, PERINGANDUR,
THRISSUR 680 581
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN - Sr.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 5354 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court impugning Ext.P6 proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent - Village Officer, asking them to evict from the area where they have been in possession for the last several years, on the ground that it is a 'Road Puramboke'. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to assignment of the area in question and therefore, that the Village Officer could not have issued Ext.P6.
2. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of Shri.I.Dinesh Menon, learned counsel for the petitioners, because as is evident from Ext.P4, petitioners have been already notified by the Tahsildar that the area in question is required for the development of the road. Obviously, therefore, petitioners cannot still insist that they are entitled for assignment of the said land.
3. Presumably, discerning the mind of this Court as afore, Shri.I.Dinesh Menon submitted that WP(C) NO. 5354 OF 2021 3 even though Ext.P4 was issued as early as in the year 2003, no steps have been taken for the development of the road until now. He, therefore, prayed that this Court may allow the petitioners to continue until such time as the competent Authorities ask them to evict, when a concrete proposal for development of the road is taken forward.
4. Shri.Aswin Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that though the development of the road is in the process of being finalized, petitioners cannot obtain any right to claim that that they should be allowed to continue in the area in question. He submitted that the best that the Authorities can do is to issue them a notice, as and when the area becomes necessary for the development of the road and that they will have to then evict themselves as per law.
5. I find substantial force in the submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader as afore; and consequently accede to the request of WP(C) NO. 5354 OF 2021 4 Shri.I.Dinesh Menon to that limited extent.
Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed to the sole extent of allowing the petitioners to continue in possession of the area where they are presently at; however, making it clear that as and when any notice is issued to them by the competent Authorities seeking eviction, they shall do so, subject to their available rights.
It is needless to say that my afore directions are only as a matter of indulgence and not on account of any declaration of right in favour of the petitioners, either to continue in possession or to seek assignment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/1.10 WP(C) NO. 5354 OF 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5354/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SHOP OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER DATED 5-2-2021 OF THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO. 75/5 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13-
10-1999 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14-
07-2003 EXHIBIT P5 FEW PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LOCATION OF SHOP EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 6-02- 2021 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 11-02-2021 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 30.09.2009.