B SHAJI Vs. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugnes Exhibit P11 order passed by the Ombudsman. Under Exhibit P11, the Ombudsman set aside the order of the Panchayat registering the name of writ petitioner Shaji as the owner of the building having door No.X/64, and directed that the name of the 3rd respondent be entered in the relevant register as the owner of the building in question. Exhibit P12 order will show that the order of the Ombudsman has been faithfully implemented by the Panchayat. Thus going by Exhibit P12, the name of the petitioner stands deleted and the same has been substituted by the name of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks a direction that his name be restored to Exhibit P12. In other words, the prayer is that Exhibit P10 be cancelled and everything that has been done on the strength of Exhibit P10 be undone.

(2.) I heard the submissions of Sri.Subash Chandra Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.K.S.Manu, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The Panchayat interestingly has not entered appearance before this court. I feel that it would have been very convenient if the Panchayat had entered appearance or produced original of the property tax assessment register.

(3.) My attention was drawn by Mr.Subash Chandra Bose to the various documents placed on record by the parties, particularly Exhibits P3, P5 and P12 assessment registers. A scrutiny of Exhibits P3 and P5 will show that the building over which the petitioner claims ownership is a tiled building with cement floor having three rooms while going by Exhibit P5, the building over which the third respondent claims ownership is a building having an area of 500 Sq.ft, a portion of which is terraced while another portion is tiled. Significantly, the building shown in Exhibit P5 has got nine rooms as against the petitioner's building in Exhibit P3 which has got only three rooms. True, title over the land upon which the building or buildings are constructed seems to be with the third respondent. But the position is fairly settled that ownership over the building constructed on the land need not necessarily be with the owner of the land itself. The situation is that ownership of a building can remain with a person other than the one who has ownership over the land.