AJAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Managing Partner of M/s. Kalyan Tourist Home in Palakkad Town complains of unauthorized and high handed acts committed by the 6th respondent who is the Secretary of the Palakkad Municipality. According to the petitioner, on 31.05.2013, the 6th respondent along with some officials and workers came with a Loader Excavator Machine (JCB) to his hotel situate in the heart of Palakkad town, forced their entry into his compound, pulled down the canopy that had been put up in the car park and destroyed the other structures therein, as could be seen from Exhibit P1 photographs. A temporary fencing using pipes has been put up blocking the entry into the petitioner's car park. The gate leading to the petitioner's car park was locked and sealed. The situation remains as such, to this date. It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that the Office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Palakkad Unit is housed in a building adjacent to the petitioner's hotel. Some officials of the said establishment are not on good terms with the petitioner, for having refused to yield to their unreasonable demands. According to the petitioner, it is under the orders of the said Officials that the illegal acts have been committed. The allegation is that, about three cents of land belonging to the Municipality has been encroached upon and reduced to his possession by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, his property is lying within well demarcated boundaries, enclosed by proper compound walls. Exhibits P4, P5, P6 and P7 documents evidence his title. He has been in absolute ownership and possession of the entire property since 28.05.1926 onwards. Therefore, it is contended that the action of the 6th respondent was without any justification.

(2.) Even assuming that the petitioner was in possession of poramboke land, the 6th respondent had no authority to take forcible possession thereof. It was incumbent upon the said authority to have complied with the procedure prescribed by S. 376 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Therefore, the present wanton acts committed by the 6th respondent are in gross violation of the Law and all canons of fair procedure. Since ingress and egress to the petitioner's parking space was blocked, he has submitted Exhibit P5 representation, on which also no action has been taken.

(3.) Advocate T.C. Suresh Menon appears for respondents 4 to 6. Two separate statements have been filed on behalf of the said respondents. In the statement dated 12.06.2013, what is stated is that, the petitioner had encroached upon Municipal land that was lying contiguous to his property. As per communication issued by the District Survey Superintendent, an extent of 3.53 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 2577/3 of Palakkad Village had been encroached upon by the petitioner. The Additional Tahsildar has reported as per Exhibit R4(b) that action should be taken against the said encroachment. It was in the said circumstances that the encroachment was removed.