Kerala High Court
St. Mary'S Jacobite Syrian Orthodox ... vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 July, 2014
Author: A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
Bench: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
FRIDAY,THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2014/3RD SRAVANA, 1936
WP(C).NO. 12663 OF 2014 (G)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
ST. MARY'S JACOBITE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH,
EAST MARADY,MUVATTUPUZHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE- P.V.ELIAS.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.VINOD BHAT,
SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL.
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.
2. MARADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
SOUTH MARADY P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN-686 673.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN,
R2 BY SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SENIOR ADVOCATE,
ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11-07-2014, THE COURT ON 25-07-204 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Prv.
W.P.(C).NO.12663/2014 - G:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P.1: COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 03/05/2014 SENT BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.3798/2014/A12 DTD. 12/05/2014
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P.3: COPY OF SETTLEMENT REGISTER ISSUED BY TALUK OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LAND TAX REGISTER ISSUED BY TALUK OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R2.(A): COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JAMBANDI REGISTER
SIGNED BY THE TAHSILDAR ON 17/06/1963 IN RESPECT OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PANCHAYAT.
EXT.R2.(B): COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE THANDAPPER REGISTER
REGARDING THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER CHURCH IN
SURVEY NO.298/11.
EXT.R2.(C): COPY OF ONE AUCTION NOTICE NO.C4-917/2011 DTD. 09/02/2011 IN
RESPECT OF AUCTIONING OF UNSUFRUCTS FROM THE STANDING
TREES BY THE PANCHAYAT.
EXT.R2.(D): COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C3-6421/13 DTD. 24/09/2013 ISSUED BY THE
PANCHAYAT FOR AUCTIONING TREES LIKE ANJILI, PONGALYAM,
VATTA, ETC., STANDING IN THE PROPERTY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
CULTURAL CENTRE.
EXT.R2.(E): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 25/06/2014 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
PANCHAYAT IN RESPECT OF SANCTIONING OF RS.75 LAKHS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF CULTURAL CENTRE BY THE PANCHAYAT.
EXT.R2.(F): COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SCHEME IN SUPPORT OF
THE CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE SPENDING RS.10 LAKHS BY THE
PANCHAYAT.
EXT.R2.(G): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 09/04/2014 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER TO THE PANCHAYAT.
EXT.R2.(H): COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PANCHAYAT
ON 13/05/2014 TO EXT.R2.(G).
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 12663 of 2014
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P2 order, by which the petitioner was directed to demolish a building constructed by the petitioner, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner church alleges that it owns a property having an extent of 4 acre and 27 cents of land in Marady Village, out of which an extent of 2 acres and 22 cents falls within Sy.No.298/11 of the said village. The petitioner alleges that out of the aforesaid extent, 25 cents of land was permitted to be occupied by the 2nd respondent in the year 1954, who later, vacated from the said land. The petitioner alleges that now, the 2nd respondent claims title and interest over the said land. The grievance of the petitioner is that on Ext.P1 application filed by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent to decide the issue, the 2nd respondent passed W.P.(C) No. 12663 of 2014 ..2..
Ext.P2 order under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Encroachment and Imposition and Recovery of Penalty for Unauthorized Occupation) Rules, 1996, against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is incompetent to issue Ext.P2 order. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent panchayath, they would contend that the petitioner has no ownership over 2 acres and 22 cents of land as alleged. According to them, 25 cents of land in Sy.No.298/11 was 'puramboke' land as per revenue records, which was given to the Marady Grama Panchayath on its formation in the year 1956 as per proceedings No.D1-1154/56; and that property is shown as 'panchayat property' in the Jamabandi Register since 1962. The copy of the relevant extract was produced as Ext.R2(a). It is further pointed out that as per the Thandapper Register, the petitioner church is having only 1.97 cents of land in Sy.No.298/11. The copy of the W.P.(C) No. 12663 of 2014 ..3..
extract is produced as Ext.R2(b). It was further contended that the office of the respondent panchayath was functioning in 25 cents of land in Sy.No.298/1 from 1956 to 1972. However, after the shifting of the new office in 1972, the usufructs from the trees in the aforesaid property were used to be auctioned by the Panchayath from time to time as could be seen from Ext.R2(c) auction notice; it is contended. According to the respondent panchayath, the District Panchayath has sanctioned 75,00,000/- for construction of a Cultural Centre in the property and the panchayath had constructed a bridge spending about 10,00,000/- during the financial year 2013-14 for entering the said property and foundation stone of the Cultural Centre was laid in February, 2014. Thereafter, according to the panchayath, they are exercising full right and ownership over the said property. They would contend that the petitioner trust trespassed upon the property and put up a temporary shed and erected a flux board. Thereupon, W.P.(C) No. 12663 of 2014 ..4..
the panchayath filed Ext.P1 complaint before the 1st respondent to remove the unauthorized construction. Thereafter, the 1st respondent heard the parties and found that the property was released to the panchayath in the year 1956; and accordingly, Ext.P2 order was issued. According to the respondent Panchayath, Ext.P6 order is well within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned senior counsel for the respondent panchayath and the learned Government Pleader.
5. Evidently, and admittedly too, the issue relates to the right to a particular property situated within the local limits of the respondent panchayath. While the petitioner claims ownership as well as possession over the said property, the panchayath alleges that the property belongs to them. As it is a disputed question of fact, which can be agitated only before a competent civil forum, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach a W.P.(C) No. 12663 of 2014 ..5..
civil court for the redressal of its grievance.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to approach a competent forum for adjudication of the issues between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent within a period of one month.
Till the issues are settled by a competent civil court, the existing state of affairs shall be continued.
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/-