KORANGOTTU BALAKRISHNAN Vs. TANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner, petitioner is in possession of 51 cents of land situate in R.S.No.32(new R.S. No.44) of Pariyapuram Village, Tirur Taluk. Case of the petitioner is that, the above said land originally belonged to the mother of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 document. After her death, petitioner was managing the property on behalf of other heirs also and improving the property also. The mother of the petitioner has obtained the property as per Ext.P2 document and her assignors were in possession of the property from 1945 onwards and they were paying land tax and improved the property. Subsequently since it was a panchayath puramboke assignors of the mother of the petitioner took it on lease and paid rent till 1978. Thereafter also they were in possession of this property. It is also the case of the petitioner that, there are about 50 coconut trees aged more than 45 years. Any how petitioner was served with Ext.P3 notice, informing that the petitioner is occupying the property unauthorisedly and if anything is to be submitted, petitioner shall submit the same before the Panchayath on receipt of the notice. Any how, from Ext.P4 it is clear that, petitioner was not responding to the notice thereupon petitioner was informed that unless the petitioner vacates the premises appropriate steps shall be issued against the property. Any how, no action was taken by the petitioner nor any objection seem to be filed. Thereupon Ext.P5 was again issued by the Panchayath directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for occupying the property in question. Thereafter Ext.P6 demand notice was issued seeking to recover an amount of Rs. 1041.00 . These are the basic facts projected by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, justifying the stand adopted in the notices and contents therein. It is also pointed out that, petitioner has no title. So also going through Exts. P1 and P2 it is quite clear and evident that petitioner was enjoying a possessory right of the erstwhile occupancy. It is also an admitted fact by the petitioner in the writ petition that, since the petitioner realise that the property was belonging to the Panchayath, a lease deed was also executed by the petitioner and the petitioner was occupying the property till 1978 on account of the lease deed. Therefore the panchayath seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) I have heard respective counsel across the Bar and evaluating the situation, one thing is clear from Exts. P3 to P5 notice and order passed by the Panchayath that the petitioner was unmindful for the notices issued by the Panchayath and was continuing in the premises inspite of earnest efforts made by the Panchayath petitioner has not cared to vacate the premises and it was thereupon that Ext.P6 demand for an amount of Rs. 1041.00was raised by the panchayath as is contemplated in Ext.P5 final notice issued directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and pay the fine. Even though petitioner has a case that, petitioner and the predecessor in the title were in occupation of the property from the year 1945, since there is a clear admission that petitioner was occupying the property on account of the lease deed executed by and between the petitioner and the Pancahayath, I do not think such contentions raised can be entertained by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. More over, going by the pleadings put forth by the petitioner it is quite clear and evident that, the issues raised by the petitioner cannot be deciphered without adjudicating the issue, taking into account the factual circumstances.