HARIPRASAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Manager of Tharakkal A.U.P.School situated within the territorial limits of the 3rd respondent Tuvvur Grama Panchayat. The school and its properties were allotted to the petitioner's late father, T.Krishnanunni, as his share, by Ext.P1 decree by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ottappalam. During the pendency of the suit, the school and its properties were managed by an Advocate Receiver. On complaints raised by a few residents of the locality regarding the ownership of the school's property, the 6th respondent conducted an enquiry and found that the property belonged to the petitioner's father, who was permitted to remit the land tax for the property. During the pendency of the suit, a local sports club had instituted a suit for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the Advocate Receiver and the School from using the playground. Although the trial court and lower appellate court had decreed the suit and appeal, by Ext.P4 judgment, this Court reversed the concurrent judgments and dismissed the suit, specifically finding that the playground belongs to the school. Later, a public interest litigation was filed before this Court alleging that the property in question was a 'puramboke land'. However, by Ext.P5 judgment, this court again affirmed that the property belonged to the school, but clarified that if any person had a rival claim over the property, his remedy was to approach the civil court. After that, the 9th respondent filed a writ petition alleging that the property was vested with the 3rd respondent - Panchayat, who was not taking any effective action to reclaim the land. This Court directed the Panchayat to decide the dispute. By Ext.P6 proceedings, the Panchayat reiterated that the property belonged to the school. The decision has attained finality. Later, when the petitioner attempted to construct a compound wall, a few persons, under the leadership of respondents 9 and 10, obstructed the work. Immediately, the petitioner approached this Court and, by Ext.P7 judgment, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the police for protection. Nonetheless, the police directed the petitioner to obtain permission from the Panchayat. Consequently, the petitioner applied for a building permit, which was allowed by the 4th respondent Secretary of the " Panchayat who issued Ext.P10 building permit. " Surprisingly, by Ext.P12 minutes, the Panchayat Committee suo motu cancelled Ext.P10 building permit. Even though an application to review the order was filed, it was also rejected by the Ext.P13 minutes. Exts.P12 and P13 decisions are illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 3 to 5, it is averred that the 4th respondent had issued Ext.P10 building permit. Nevertheless, upon the President of the Panchayat receiving several complaints that the compound wall was being constructed in a puramboke land, the Panchayat, after verifying the documents, resolved to cancel Ext.P10 building permit. Ext.R3(a) document shows that the property has vested with the Panchayat. The revenue authorities have assigned the property to the petitioner through a sub-division process, without affording the Panchayat an opportunity of being heard. The Panchayat is not a party to the proceedings before this Court and is, therefore, not bound by the judgments. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P10 building permit over a disputed property. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

(3.) The 9th respondent in his counter affidavit has disputed the petitioner's relationship with the Kannanoor Puthen Madam Nair Family. He has asserted that, as per Annexure R9(e) information received from the Village Officer, the petitioner is not the owner of the property. The fact that neither the petitioner nor his father had remitted land tax for the property from 1999 to 2016 proves that they were not in possession or enjoyment of the property. The property is a public playground.