V A ABDUL LATHEEF Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P12 order, passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner, in a revision filed under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1956. The facts to be noticed are that the petitioner has a property in Sy.No. 8 in Block No.65 of Permbavoor Village. R.S.No.5 of Block No.65 lying to the south of the petitioner's property was alleged to be puramboke. The sketch of the property is produced at Ext.P1. The said puramboke was said to have been unauthorizedly occupied and buildings constructed there on by one Musthafa, whose legal representatives are respondents 5 to 11. It is noticed that the respondent 5 is no more, but however, since the other legal heirs are on record there is no reason for any further impleadment.

(2.) Ext.P2 is an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (Tribunal) in an application filed by Musthafa, which challenged an action by the Municipality against the buildings constructed, there on. In Ext.P2, the Municipality was directed to consider the regularisation. Later to Ext.P2 order, Musthafa passed away and the petitioner was before this Court with a writ petition, seeking expeditious consideration of the regularisation application. The petitioner was concerned with the unauthorised occupation of the puramboke land, since the said occupation and the buildings constructed thereon interdicted his access into the public road lying to the south of the properties, as seen from Ext.P1 sketch. Pursuant to Ext.P3 directions issued by this Court, the regularisation application, was considered and rejected. The Municipality also took further proceedings as is seen from Ext.P4, an authorisation letter, authorising the Building Inspector to carry out demolition of the building. Despite this, since the demolition itself was not effected and eviction carried out, the petitioner was before the District Collector with Ext.P5. Again the matter reached before this Court by a writ petition filed by the petitioner.

(3.) In Ext.P6, this Court elaborately considered the contentions of each of the parties. The party respondents herein who are the legal heirs of Musthafa were also parties in Ext.P6. They conceded that they have absolutely no rights over the property. It was however argued that third parties have filed a civil suit and obtained an injunction. The only objection raised by the legal heirs was that the plaintiffs in the civil suit were not impleaded. They categorically admitted that they have absolutely no title over the property.