JOHN ABRAHAM Vs. PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

(2.) A Reply Affidavit has been filed, pointing out that Ext. Rl(b) Report, inter alia, says that the petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of 6.250 cents of land with Thandaper No. 4066 and land tax was received from the petitioner. It is pointed out that none of the Government Officials including the Panchayat complied with any of the laws, and violating the procedure including the Panchayatraj Act, the respondent Panchayat issued Ext, P8 notice illegally and made certain damage to the petitioner's building. Lakhs of Rupees were suffered as damage, apart from mental agony and the petitioner is reserving his right to avail appropriate legal remedies. Ext. P8 proceedings is clearly an infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is stated.

(3.) I heard Shri. Paul K.Varghese, learned counsellor the petitioner, Shri. P. Santhalingam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Panchayat, besides the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the respondent Panchayat proceeds on the basis that the property in question is vested in the Panchayat. If the property is vested in the Panchayat, petitioner would become an encroacher. If that is so, the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal, of Encroachment and Imposition & Recovery of Penalty for Unauthorised Occupation) Rules, 1996 would become applicable. Rules 4 and 5 are relevant. Rule 4 provides for eviction of unauthorised occupants. Rule 5 provides for the procedure for eviction. It speaks of serving fifteen days' notice to the occupant before evicting the person from the land belonging to or vested with the Panchayat. It further categorically provides for a brief description of the land unauthorisedly occupied and the reasons for the eviction are to be specifically stated in the Notice. Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5 read as follows: