BHAVA KHAN Vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that the official respondents have trespassed into the property of the petitioner and cut open a road. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner is having title and possession over the property, namely 4.5 cents in Sy. No. 106/10 of Kureekad Village, which was obtained by virtue of sale deed No. 2596 of 1981, a copy of which has been produced as Exhibit P1. It is also stated that a portion of the property is covered by Pattayam No. 294 dated 27.5.1971. Various other factors have also been pointed out in the Writ Petition. There is a building in the property, and the assessment has been changed in his name after the purchase. The petitioner contends for the position that the petitioner is having title and possession over the property and no part of it is a Government land or a 'purambokku' land. In this context, the petitioner has produced Exhibits P7, P8, P9 and P10. Exhibit P7 is the possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Ernakulam dated 31.12.1991. Exhibit P8 is the communication issued by the 4th respondent on the application for mutation. Exhibit P9 is the proceedings of the re -survey Superintendent and Exhibit P10 is an application submitted by the petitioner to the Assistant Executive Engineer, staking his claim. The contention raised in the Writ Petition is that attempt has been made to cut open a road through the property illegally and without any notice to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if at all any portion of the land is required by the Government or other official respondents, without recourse to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and payment of adequate compensation, such a high -handed action cannot be taken. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not expected to part away with any portion of the property, without getting any compensation.

(2.) THE 2nd respondent, in paragraph No. 2 of the statement filed, has taken the stand that on verification of the Village records, it is found that the property in old survey No. 106/10 is now situated in Re -survey No. 249/8 of Kureekkad Village. The above property is seen as PWD Road 'purambokku'. It is also the case of the 2nd respondent that the claim of the petitioner about the possession of the property is not correct and he is not having Thandapper number and no land tax was collected after re -survey. Finally it is pointed out in the said paragraph that the petitioner's 4.5 cents of property situated in old survey No. 106/10 and Re -survey No. 249/8 is seen as part of 82.97 Ares of land, which is a PWD 'purambokku'. From the pleadings in paragraph No. 3 of the statement, it is seen that the respondents have treated the property as a 'purambokku' land and it was recommended to use it for construction of a Police Station. Since the petitioner claims possession and enjoyment over the property, the respondents can proceed with the matter only if the identity of the property claimed by the petitioner is ascertained and the claim of the petitioner is properly adjudicated to find out the real position. Therefore, if at all any action is proposed, due notice will be given to the petitioner and his case will be considered. If it is found that the property claimed by the petitioner in terms of the documents produced herein do not form part of any 'purambokku' land and if it is required for construction of the Police Station, only in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, petitioner can be asked to surrender any portion of the land, after recourse to such proceedings. If it is held otherwise, proceedings will be initiated only with due notice, and after hearing him. No forcible dispossession can be made.