Kerala High Court
V.A.Paul @ Paul Antony Vadassery vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 6 April, 2026
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2026:KER:30262
WP(C) NO. 22913 OF 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 22913 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
V.A.PAUL @ PAUL ANTONY VADASSERY,
AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. LATE V.P ANTONY, PERMANENT RESIDENT
OF VADASSERY HOUSE, MARAMPALLY ROAD, PALLURUTHY,
KOCHI 682 006
AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT OMAIR TRAVEL AGENCY BUILDING,
FLAT NO. 52, KHALIFA STREET, KHALIFA, ABUDHABI,
POST NO. 31587 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, REPRESENTED BY HIS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER O. BABU YOHANNAN,
AGED 54, YEARS, S/O. OONNUNNY, ARIYATTIL HOUSE,
VALUMMEL ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI 682 005.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL
SMT.P.USHAKUMARI
RESPONDENTS:
1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING,
THRISSUR 680 001
2 SPECIAL THAHASILDAR,
LC UNIT, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF COCHIN
2026:KER:30262
WP(C) NO. 22913 OF 2020
2
DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR 680 001
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030
4 CORPORATION OF COCHIN,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, P.B NO. 1016, COCHIN 682 011
5 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
1ST FLOOR, K.B JACOB ROAD, FORTH KOCHI 682 001
BY ADVS.
K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR K.J., SPL.G.P. FOR REVENUE
SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE
SRI.ARUN ANTONY
ADV. RASHMI K M, SR. GP.,
ADV. SAREENA GEORGE, SC FOR CORPORATION OF KOCHI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:30262
WP(C) NO. 22913 OF 2020
3
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 7.550 cents in Survey No. 660/4 of Rameswaram Village. According to him, the said property devolved upon him under Ext. P1 sale deed No. 859/84 dated 21.03.1984 of the Kochi Registrar Office. After working for several decades in Abu Dhabi, he returned to India and decided to construct a residential building. For that purpose, he approached the Cochin Corporation and obtained Ext. P2 building permit dated 09.05.2018. However, when the construction commenced, the petitioner was served with Ext. P3 notice by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the 4th respondent Corporation, restraining him from proceeding with the construction.
2. On further enquiry, it was revealed that the Special Tahsildar, Cochin Devaswom Board, had issued Ext. P4 order dated 26.04.2019 for eviction of encroachers from various items of property in Rameswaram Village belonging to Azhakiya Kavu Devaswom. According to the petitioner, no prior notice had been issued to him before the issuance of Ext. P4. Thereafter, a notice in C-Form dated 26.04.2019, produced as Ext. P5, was issued to him alleging that he had 2026:KER:30262 WP(C) NO. 22913 OF 2020 4 encroached upon an extent of 0.0014 hectares of Devaswom land in Survey No. 613/1.
3. The petitioner challenges Exts. P4 and P5 on the ground that they were issued in violation of the principles of law and natural justice. On the above grounds, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Call for the records leading to Ext. P1 to Ext. P5.
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash Ext.P4, and Ext.P5 orders on the reason that these orders are issued without issuing notice or hearing the petitioner.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, or order commanding the respondents not to proceed against the petitioner relying on Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 orders."
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Devaswom Board contending that Exts. P4 and P5 were issued in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, and that if the petitioner has any grievance, he must approach the competent statutory authorities and exhaust the remedies available to him under the statute. It is further contended that, while Ext. P1 shows that the petitioner has rights over property in Survey No. 660/4 of Rameswaram Village, Ext. P4 clearly reveals that the petitioner has trespassed into property in Survey No. 613/1 of the said village. It is also stated that, pursuant to the directions of this Court, the 2nd respondent measured the 2026:KER:30262 WP(C) NO. 22913 OF 2020 5 property and found that the petitioner had encroached upon 0.0011 hectares of land in Survey No. 613/1 and had constructed a wall and put up a gate therein. It is further stated that the petitioner cannot raise a claim over the property falling in Survey No. 613/1.
5. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Sivan Madathil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K. P. Sudheer, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Devaswom Board, Sri. Sareena George, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Cochin Corporation, as well as the learned Government Pleader.
6. We find that when the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 24.02.2021, this Court, taking note of the contentions advanced by the petitioner, directed the 2nd respondent to demarcate an extent of 0.0014 hectares in Survey No. 613/1 of Rameswaram Village in Kochi Taluk, which was allegedly encroached upon by the petitioner. This Court also directed that, after such demarcation, the report along with the sketch prepared by the 2nd respondent be placed before this Court. Thereafter, by order dated 18.03.2021, this Court permitted the petitioner to proceed with the construction of the residential building in his property having an extent of 7.550 cents in Survey No. 660/4 of Rameswaram Village in Kochi Taluk, provided that he had absolute title and possession over the same. This Court further directed that the petitioner 2026:KER:30262 WP(C) NO. 22913 OF 2020 6 shall not use the disputed extent of land measuring 0.0011 hectares in Survey No. 613/1 for the purpose of construction pursuant to the permit. The learned Government Pleader was also directed to produce a report and sketch of the alleged encroached land measuring 0.0014 hectares in Survey No. 613/1 before this Court.
7. Pursuant to the said directions, the field sketch of Block No. 613/1 has been placed before this Court. We have gone through the sketch and find that the property in Survey No. 660/4 is the property in respect of which the petitioner has absolute title, enjoyment and possession, as is evident from Ext. P1 deed. It is in the said property that the Corporation had permitted the petitioner to carry out construction, which is also borne out by Ext. P2 building permit. From the sketch prepared by the Surveyor dated 10.03.2024, it is seen that the petitioner has encroached into a small portion of property measuring about 11.187 square metres in Survey No. 613/1. The petitioner has no case that he has any manner of right or title over the property falling in Survey No. 613/1.
8. In view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has completed construction on the property over which he has absolute rights, and the extent of 11.187 square metres falling in Survey No. 613/1 has been kept apart. In the light of Ext. P1, which clearly establishes that the petitioner has right only in respect of property measuring 7.550 cents in Survey No. 660/4 of 2026:KER:30262 WP(C) NO. 22913 OF 2020 7 Rameswaram Village, the petitioner cannot claim any right, title or possession over the property measuring 11.187 square metres in Survey No. 613/1. We also find that the petitioner cannot have any sustainable grievance in respect of Exts. P4 and P5, since Ext. P4 pertains to the property covered by Survey No. 613/1, whereas the petitioner has title only in respect of the property in Survey No. 660/4.
9. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. More importantly, the petitioner has already completed the construction of the building in terms of the building permit.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
msp
2026:KER:30262
WP(C) NO. 22913 OF 2020
8
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 22913 OF 2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. SILK/HRD/CO/II(47/404
DATED 04-07-2020 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER OF SILK
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 859/84
DATED 21-03-1984
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.
SY.P1-607/8/2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 09-05-2018 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07-09-2020 IS SEND BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-04-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE C-FORM NOTICE DATED 26-04-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED ON 24-07-2020 IN WPC NO.
13816/2020