ST. MARYS JACOBITE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Vs. PALLIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHERAI, CHERAI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 communication issued to him by the 2nd respondent. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that, Ext.P3 communication issued to him is consequent to a prima facie finding by the respondent Panchayath that there is a discrepancy in the document pertaining to the property of St.Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, Cherai, as seen from the entries in the Basic Tax Receipt (BTR) maintained in the Village office, and the documents maintained by the respondent Panchayath, in connection with the receipt of property tax in respect of the building constructed by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that, he has filed Exts.P4 and P6 replies to Ext.P3 notice received from the 2nd respondent, and it will suffice, if a direction is given to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders, after considering Exts.P4 and P6 replies submitted by him.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, who represents a rival faction to the petitioner, and claims an interest over the properties belonging to the aforementioned Church. Various documents are produced along with counter affidavit of the said respondent to suggest that the claim made by the petitioner with regard to a proprietary interest over the building in question, is false, and the suggestion in the counter affidavit is that, the building, which is the subject matter of Ext.P3 notice issued to the petitioner, is one that is actually owned by the faction represented by the 3rd respondent. 2A. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Panchayath and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that when the matter came up for admission on 25.11.2016, an interim stay of operation of Ext.P3 communication was granted by this Court, initially for a period of two months. The said interim order has been extended from time to time and continues to be in force till today. The allegation in Ext.P3 notice served on the petitioner is essentially with regard to the difference in the name of the owner of the building in question, as shown in the various revenue records as also the records maintained by the Panchayath, in connection with the acceptance of property tax. In order to resolve any dispute with regard to the title of the property, it is for the petitioner or the 3rd respondent, to approach a Civil Court for adjudication of the title dispute. As far as the 2nd respondent Panchayath is concerned, I am of the view that the Panchayath can only go with the revenue documents which may serve as evidence of a possible title in any particular person, and consider the rival case of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, and take a decision as to whether or not it would be legally permissible for the Panchayath to cancel a building number that has already been allotted by the Panchayath to the building in question. The 2nd respondent shall therefore consider Exts.P4 and P6 objections submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P3 communication issued to the petitioner, and take a decision in the matter, after hearing the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, and perusing the relevant documents that are germane to a consideration of the issue which the Panchayath is competent to decide. The 2nd respondent shall take a decision in the matter, as directed, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that, till such time as the 2nd respondent Panchayath takes a decision in the matter, and communicates its decision to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the interim order granted by this Court shall continue to operate.