This writ petition W.P.(C)No.2570/2015, though filed later, requires primary adjudication since the petitioners therein have the grievance that they have been evicted with police force, without recourse to due process of law. On the other hand, W.P.(C)No.35461/2014, filed earlier, ventilates the grievance of the petitioners therein, who are said to be the residents of the Grama Panchayat, that the Grama Panchayat has been frittering away its property without observing any statutory safeguards. Since the issues are inter-connected, this Court disposes of both writ petitions through a common judgment.

2. Before adverting to the facts of the matter, some of which are hardly disputed, this Court is constrained to observe that this is a classic case of official apathy, regrettably, leading to loss of faith in the Local Self Government; and also gross abuse of position vis-a-vis the public property. The saying goes: If it is the property of many, it is not the concern of any.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioners, eight in number, are said to be the tenants of the respondent Grama Panchayat. The first petitioner, apart from representing himself, also represents his brother, who is also an alleged tenant of the respondent Grama Panchayat; similar is the case with the second petitioner, who is said to represent his son, another tenant. The justification supplied by the first and second petitioners to represent others, related though, without any valid agency is that the other two tenants were not readily available to sign the authorisation, vakalatnama.

4. The petitioners, having produced Exhibits P1 to P24 documents to hammer home their claim that they have been the tenants, have a singular grievance that on 26.12.2014 all of them were evicted summarily without any notice, not to speak of observance of any principles of natural justice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a declaration that they are the tenants and that possession of the respective shop rooms be restored to them.

5. After taking me through Exhibits P1 to P24 to establish that the petitioners were not trespassers but tenants duly inducted by the respondent Grama Panchayat in to their respective shop rooms, the learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that on 26.12.2014, with the help of the police, the respondent Grama Panchayat threw the petitioners out on to the streets without due process. According to the learned counsel, after effecting the eviction, the respondent Grama Panchayat, post-haste, issued Exhibit P25 notice calling for objections concerning eviction, provided the objector could establish that he had been a tenant earlier. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to Exhibit P26, objection filed by one of the petitioners in response to Exhibit P25. He has submitted that all the other petitioners have also submitted similar objections, but to no avail.

6. The learned counsel has submitted that, initially having suspected certain foul play on the part of the respondent Grama Panchayat to evict the petitioners without due process, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of Civil Court by filing O.S.No.445/2014 on 04.12.2014. In expatiation of his submissions, the learned counsel would contend that since Section 249 of the Panchayat Raj Act has a statutory embargo against filing suits without prior notice, the petitioners, despite their filing the suit well in advance, could not get any interim protection. According to him, taking advantage of the said situation, the respondent Grama Panchayat forcefully evicted the petitioners on 26.12.2014.

7. The learned counsel has also strenuously contended that no provision of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for brevity 'the Act') provides for summary and forceful eviction without recourse to due process of law. The learned counsel has eventually contended that, notwithstanding the pendency of the civil suit, in view of gross illegality perpetuated