K.R. JOSEPH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition raises a question of some public importance. It indicates the extent of callousness and carelessness on the part of the revenue officials in whom the State reposed its trust for the preservation and protection of the State's property.

(2.) A private land was acquired by spending public money. The purpose of the acquisition was providing a public road. The acquisition was at the instance of the Cochin Corporation and within the limits of the Cochin city. The materials in the case disclose that soon after the acquisition of the land, it was encroached upon by the 3rd respondent The mahazar, sketch and form No. A prepared by the Taluk Surveyor locate the area of encroachment and furnish the details thereof.

(3.) The neighbour of the 3rd respondent, presumably out of a private feud was prompting, and sometimes even pressurising, the statutory authorities to vigorously pursue proceedings for the removal of the encroachment. The writ petition was filed on 16-5-1985 making a grievance of the inaction of the statutory authorities in relation to the encroachment. By an interim order passed on 17-5-1985, the Collector was directed to dispose of, within two weeks, the representation of the petitioner dated 15-1-1985 complaining about the encroachment It was pursuant to the action taken thereafter that the Taluk Surveyor, after the inspection of the property, prepared the Mahazr, sketch and Form No. A, relating to the encroachment. The petitioner was informed by letter dated 8-10-1985 by the District Collector that action was in progress to evict the encroachment. A copy of the letter was sent to the Tahsildar, Cochin for necessary action. The Tahsildar was also directed to report whether the Land Conservancy case had been so disposed of and the nature of the disposal if it had been so disposed of. The Tahsildar apparently did not attach much seriousness to the direction from the Collectorate. It . would appear that on 26-11-1985, the Tahsildar satisfied himself by addressing a letter to the Cochin Corporation pointing out that the encroachment was within, the Corporation limits and suggesting that the Corporation may, therefore, take action against the encroachment. That such a letter had been sent to the Corporation, was the reply furnish d by the Tahasildar on 17-3-1986 in reply to a demi official letter of the Deputy Collector dared 17-2-1986. The above stand is reiterated by the Tahsildar in the counter affidavit filed by him in the original petition.