Kerala High Court
Anugraha Mahila Samajam And Workshed vs The Principal Secretary on 20 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 27277 OF 2018
PETITIONERS:
1 ANUGRAHA MAHILA SAMAJAM AND WORKSHED,
VANITHA COMMUNITY CUM TRAINING CENTER,
REG. NO. P 472/2000,KOZHENCHERRY PANCHAYATH STADIUM
COMPOUND, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
ANNIE JOSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS,, W/O. JOSEPH THOMAS,
SAMUDHAYATHIL HOUSE, KEEZHUKARA,
KOZHENCHERRY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689641
2 THE PRESIDENT,
ANUGRAHA MAHILA SAMAJAM AND WORKSHED,( VANITHA
COMMUNITY CUM TRAINING CENTER), REG.NO. P 472/2000,
KOZHENCHERRY PANCHAYATH STADIUM COMPOUND,
MRS. ELIZABETH ROY, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. ROY GEORGE,
RESIDING AT MERRY VILLA, NELLIKARA O.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA 689643
BY ADV
SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
PATHANAMTHITTA,
3 KOZHENCHERRY GRAMA
PANCHAYATH, KOZHENCHERRY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
689641, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4 THE PRESIDENT,
KOZHENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOZHENCHERRY P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689641
BY ADV
SRI. BINOY DAVIS, G. P.
WP(C) NO. 27277 OF 2018 -2-
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BBEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27277 OF 2018 -3-
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is a Mahila Samajam,
represented by its Secretary. The second petitioner is
the President of the first petitioner Samajam. The third
respondent Kozhencherry Grama Panchayath had
acquired an extent of 1.87 acres of land adjacent to the
Pathanamthitta- Kozhencherry main road. The Grama
Panchayath had allotted an extent of two cents of land
out of 1.87 acres of land and the petitioners utilizing the
funds allotted by the District Panchayath had
constructed a building No.XII/104 of Kozhencherry
Grama Panchayath for carrying on their activities and in
furtherance to their objectives. While so, the meeting
held on 21.07.2018, on the request made by a Veterinary
Surgeon for starting a veterinary clinic, the third
respondent, out of Agenda, had arbitrarily taken a
decision for evicting the petitioners from the building for
starting the said veterinary clinic. Copy of the notice of
the meeting dated 19.07.2018 is exhibited as P3.
Thereafter, the petitioners were served with a notice
dated 27.07.2018 (Ext.P4) in terms of Section 5(1) of the
Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1968. To Ext.P4 notice the petitioners
had replied by Exts.P5 to P8. The petitioners assert
before this Court that occupation of the petitioners is not
unauthorized. It was after grant of due permission by
the committee of the panchayath that the land was
allotted to them and they had constructed the building.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the second respondent in which it is specifically stated
that if land was required for public purpose and the
occupation of the petitioners is unauthorised. It is
submitted that the persons who had supported the first
petitioner on 07.12.2015 to allow the building of the first
respondent has reverted their stand considering the
development of the third respondent panchayath and had
voted in favour of evicting the first petitioner in their
meeting held on 21.07.2018.
3. The writ petition was admitted on 10.08.2018
and there was an interim order directing the further
proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 to be kept in abeyance.
4. I have heard Smt. Indu Susan Jacob, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Binoy
Davis, learned Government Pleader appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is no appearance for
respondent Nos.3 and 4.
5. When the facts so pleaded in the writ petition
is scrutinized carefully, it becomes evident that the
petitioners were allotted the building at a decision taken
by the Panchayath. It is also not in dispute that later the
panchayath has taken a different view and the committee
has decided to evict the petitioners. The petitioners
submit before this Court that before taking such
decision, the petitioners were not heard by the
Panchayath and therefore there is violation of principles
of natural justice. It is consequent to the said decision
that Ext.P4 notice has been issued under Section 5(1) of
the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1968.
6. The contention of the petitioners is that there
is a violation of principles of natural justice and that
before the decision of the panchayath was taken, there
should have been heard, is considered by this Court,
necessarily, this Court will have to find that for each and
every decision of the Panchayath, the aggrieved persons
cannot be put on notice and the decision be taken in this
regard. It is the prerogative of the panchayath to
convene its own agenda for the meeting and proceed
accordingly. If the meeting as contended by the
petitioners is not in accordance with the provisions of
rules and regulations, it is for the petitioners to work out
their remedy in appropriate proceedings.
7. However, be that as it may, the petitioners are
justified in contending before this Court that before
initiating measures under the Kerala Public Buildings
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, there should
be a finding that the occupation of the petitioners is
unauthorised. It is only when the occupation becomes
unauthorized that the provisions of the Act will apply
thereby entitling the Panchayath to invoke the
proceedings under the said Act. In the above
circumstances, interest of justice would suffice if the
Secretary of the Panchayath is directed to reconsider the
entire issue on the question as to whether the occupation
of the petitioners is unauthorized or not. Accordingly,
Ext.P4 is quashed. The Secretary of the third respondent
panchayath is directed to take up Ext.P5 representation
and consider after affording an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners. The petitioners are also free to make
supplement representation in tune with Ext.P5. The
petitioners may also request for such additional
documents/decision of the committee of the panchayath
in order to establish their cause. Once such request has
been made, the Secretary shall without any delay provide
such requirements as requested by the petitioners. The
needful shall be done, at any rate, within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the
judgment. It is made clear that the Court has not
expressed any opinion on the respective merits of the
claim and it is purely at the discretion of the Secretary of
the Kozhencherry Grama Panchayath to take a decision
on the question as to whether the occupation of the
petitioners is unauthorized or not. The Writ Petition is
ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
vv
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27277/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KOZHENCHERRY
GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 10.12.2015
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
27.11.2015 ISSUED FROM THE STATE
ELECTION COMMISSION TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE
MEETING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
19.07.2018
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
27.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
28.07.2018 MADE BY PETITIONERS TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 23.07.2018 MADE BY THE
PETITIONERS TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE
BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 23.07.2018 TO
MUNICIPAL SECRETARY LAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED NIL MADE BY THE PETITIONERS TO
2ND RESPONDENT
