In this writ petition, the petitioners, who are tenants in shop rooms constructed encroaching into Panchayat land are challenging Exhibit P4 order of the 2nd respondent-Tanur Grama Panchayat issued under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Encroachment and Imposition and Recovery of Penalty for Unauthorized Occupation) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), directing them to vacate the encroached premises and Exhibit P7 series of orders of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners against Exhibit P4 Order.

2. The owner of the buildings in which the petitioners are petty traders have admitted before the Panchayat that the offending constructions encroach into Panchayat land and that he is ready and willing to remove the encroachments, which according to him, were made by the petitioners without his permission and knowledge. Exhibit P1 and similar notices dated 31/01/2008 were issued to the petitioners stating that since in the survey conducted by the Revenue authorities it was found that the petitioners have encroached into Panchayat property and the District Collector had directed to evict the encroachers, the petitioners shall vacate the encroached portion on or before 01/02/2008. The petitioners challenged that notice before this Court in W.P.(C).No.4285/2008, in which, by Exhibit P2 Judgment dated 11/02/2008, this Court directed the Panchayat to pass orders. Pursuant to the same, the 1st respondent passed Exhibit P4 order, against which the petitioners filed Appeal Nos. 156/2008, 158/2008, 157/2008, 159/2008 and 160/2008 which have been dismissed by the Tribunal by Exhibits P7, P7(1), P7(2), P7(3), and P7(4) orders.

3. The petitioners are challenging the said orders on the following grounds:

(a) The 2nd respondent Panchayat, by issuing Exhibit P4 order, instead of the 1st respondent Secretary of the Panchayat, deprived the petitioners of their appellate remedy and therefore Exhibit P4 is illegal.

(b) Since in Exhibit P1 notice it is stated that the action has been taken as directed by the District Collector and Deputy Collector, who themselves had powers of eviction under other enactment, the action of the 2nd respondent without any subjective satisfaction of their own is illegal.

(c) The power to remove encroachment is not included in the powers and duties of the Panchayat under the Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Encroachment and Imposition and Recovery of Penalty for Unauthorized Occupation) Rules, 1996 is ultravires the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and therefore unconstitutional, especially since Section 254 of the Act which confers rule making power on the Government authorizes only framing of rules for imposition and recovery of unauthorized occupation under S.254 (2) (XXIX) and does note authorise power to make rules for eviction of unauthorized occupation itself. The Rules are unconstitutional also for the reason that the Panchayat cannot act as an arbiter of its own cause. Further after the amendment of Section 169 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act in 2000 and the amendment of Section 3 of the Kerala Land conservancy Act adding explanation (IV) to Sub Section (1) and in view of Sub Section (2) thereof, the power to evict encroachments of properties of local authorities vests exclusively with the Government.

(d) The petitioners cannot be evicted without a proper survey with notice to the petitioners.

(e) The Tribunal has relied on documents in the file of the Panchayat for controverting which the petitioners were given no opportunity.

4. On the above grounds the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs:

"1. To declare that the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Removal of Encroachments and Imposition and Recovery of Penalty for Unauthorized Occupation) Rules 1996 as ultravires and unconstitutional.

Or in the alternative.

2. To quash Exhibit P1 notice as it has been passed not on any subjective satisfaction of any encroac