Siril J vs The District Collector
2022 Latest Caselaw 6154 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6154 Ker
Judgement Date : 1 June, 2022

Kerala High Court

Siril J vs The District Collector on 1 June, 2022

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
     WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 17768 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1     SIRIL J.,
          AGED 36 YEARS,
          S/O. JESHUDAS,
          BIRLA NIVAS,
          THEKKECHERY,
          KANJAVELI P.O,
          KOLLAM - 691602.

    2     PRASEEDHA,
          AGED 34 YEARS,
          W/O. SHYAM KUMAR,
          KADAPAYIL VILA VEEDU,
          THEKKECHERY,
          KANJAVELI P.O, KOLLAM - 691602.

          BY ADV VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          CIVIL STATION ROAD, KOLLAM - 691013.

    2     THRIKARUVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          KAANJAAVELI P.O, KOLLAM P.O - 691602.

    3     LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA,
          KARUTHALA KAAYALVAARAM,
          KANJAVELI P.O, KOLLAM -691602.

          SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.17768/2022

                                   2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022

The petitioners, who are owners in possession of

land in Thrikaruva Village of Kollam District, have

approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P4

and to direct the 2nd respondent not to take any action

against the property of the petitioners till hearing the

petitioners after giving notice to them.

2. The petitioners state that they own land in

Re-Survey Nos.319/7 and 343/14 of Thrikaruva Village in

Kollam District. There is a drainage channel situated near

the property of the petitioners.

3. The 3rd respondent made a compliant to the

Panchayat stating that there is encroachment by the WP(C)No.17768/2022

petitioners on the pathway. The petitioners would submit

that the drainage channel was constructed after taking the

entire width. The properties on both sides were separated

and there cannot be any instance of encroachment. The

petitioners are holding the property under a valid title deed.

Nevertheless, the 2nd respondent issued Exts.P3 and P4

notices to the petitioners pointing out that the petitioners

have encroached upon public land and directing the

petitioners to remove illegal construction, failing which the

Panchayat Authorities were to demolish the illegal

construction.

4. The petitioners state that if the petitioners are not

heard in the matter before demolishing the alleged illegal

construction, the petitioners will be put to untold hardship

and irreparable loss. Therefore, the 2 nd respondent is liable

to be compelled not to proceed with Exts.P3 and P4 without

hearing the petitioners.

WP(C)No.17768/2022

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. In view

of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition,

notice to respondents 2 and 3 are dispensed with.

6. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is

discernible that Exts.P3 and P4 are only notices issued to

the petitioners. The petitioners have a right to submit their

explanation to Exts.P3 and P4 notices and the 2 nd

respondent is liable to consider the same, if the petitioners

submit reply. The petitioners apprehend that since the

respondents have already informed the petitioners that

unless the alleged encroachment is demolished the

Panchayat Authorities will act themselves, any reply given

by the petitioners are not likely to yield any result.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the view that if the petitioners submit a reply to

same before taking any coercive action pursuant to Exts.P3

and P4.

8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed

of with the following directions:

i) The petitioners shall submit reply to Exts.P3 and

P4, within a period of one week.

ii) If the petitioners submit reply to Exts.P3 and P4,

the 2nd respondent shall consider the reply submitted by the

petitioners. A final decision in the matter shall be taken only

after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as

well as the 3rd respondent.

iii) If the petitioners submit reply to Exts.P3 and P4

within one week as directed above, the 2 nd respondent shall

proceed with coercive proceedings if any, only after hearing

the petitioners and the 3rd respondent and passing an order.

Sd/-

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17768/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS OF THE PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND DATED 18.04.2022 AND 21.04.2022.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 22.02.2022.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE HUSBAND OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 27.12.2021.