JOMY K GEORGE Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have 40 cents of property in Payam Amsom and Desom of Thalassery Taluk. Thalassery-Coorg road passes through the western side of the petitioners' property. There was no access from the petitioners' property to that road. The road access could only be through the reservoir area of the Pazhassery Irrigation Project. The petitioners wanted to construct a road in the reservoir area connecting the petitioners' property to a small strip of land on the eastern side of the T-C Road, which the petitioners purchased. The 1st respondent, by Ext.P1 order dated 19.5.2000, permitted the petitioners to construct the road on certain conditions. As per the conditions, the construction of the road was to be supervised by the departmental officers, the construction of the road should not be effected in the water spread area and necessary agreement should be executed. The petitioners constructed the road. None of the respondents raised any objections to the same. But, suddenly on 8.2.2007, after 7 years, the Executive Engineer, Pazhassery Irrigation Project, Kannur issued Ext.P2 order cancelling Ext.P1 permission to construct the road. Thereupon, by Ext.P3, the Thalassery Additional Tahsildar passed orders under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act directing the petitioners to vacate the property comprised of the road. It is challenging Exts.P2 and P3, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein the stand taken is that the petitioners had constructed the road contrary to the specifications of the respondents, insofar as instead of two metres width, the petitioners had constructed the road by with 2.5 metres width. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that many complaints were received by the Public alleging encroachment into the Government properties. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that in view of the complaints, notice was issued to the petitioners to which the petitioners did not respond and therefore the Assistant Executive Engineer made a site inspection and submitted Ext.R1(b) report. It is based on Ext.R1(b) report that the action has been taken, is the contention raised. The respondents, therefore, seek to sustain the impugned orders.

(3.) APART from all these, the respondents themselves envisaged the construction of the road for the use not only of the petitioners but also the public as well, which is evident from Ext.R1(a) which stipulates that the proposed road will be kept open for the public. No doubt it will be useful for the department also. That being so, it defies logic as to why the respondents now want to demolish the road itself. Therefore, I am of opinion that the action taken by the respondents are totally arbitrary and unreasonable. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. However, I make it clear that if in future there occurs any contingencies which would require removal of the road, the respondents may take appropriate action, but that shall only be after a notice and hearing to the petitioners and passing a reasoned order considering all aspects. The writ petition is disposed of as above.