Court affirmed that unauthorized constructions could not be removed if established prior to a defined period without pending disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 17.09.2011 issued by the District Collector, Kollam in respect of removal of the religious structures over the Government land and further direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachments allegedly made on the public road and puramboke in Sy. No. 350 of Kallelibhagom Village allegedly by the 5^th respondent, the Secretary, Mararithottam Mahadevar Temple, Kallelibhagom, Karunagappally, Kollam district.

2. The Supreme Court in its Order dated 16.02.2010 in SLP(c) No. 8519 of 2006 has directed that no unauthorized construction should be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc. on public streets, public parks or other public places. In respect of unauthorized construction of religious nature which had already taken place on public places, the Court has directed all the State Governments and the Union Territories to review the same on case to case basis and formulate comprehensive policy regarding the removal/relocation/regularization of the unauthorized construction within a weeks from the date of the order.

3. Considering the gravity of the matter, a Cabinet Sub Committee was constituted for formulating a policy and accordingly a Government Order dated 26.08.2010 was issued by the Home Department of the State Government. All the District Collectors were directed to regularize the unauthorized constructions of religious nature taken place before fifteen years back i.e., as on 31.12.1995 provided there was no pending legal dispute and public objection.

4. In compliance of the instructions by the District Collectors, the Tahsildars conducted detailed enquiry through Village Officers and verified each case on merit and reported such cases to the Office of the District Collector along with mahazar, location sketch and the copy of BTR after public notice. The District Collector after considering the reports found that the structure for which the present writ petition has been filed and other structures as mentioned in Exhibit P-7 order (74 in total) were constructed before fifteen years back and any forceful eviction in these cases would lead to law-and-order issues in the locality.

5. This Court does not find that the District Collector has violated in any manner the Government Order dated 26.08.2010. The decision of the District Collector impugned in this writ petition is based on the ground reality as well as the findings recorded in the reports after public hearing that the structures had come up fifteen years prior to the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court. In view thereof, I do find that this Court is required to go into the disputed question of fact and thus, the present writ petition fails, and it is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

D. K. SINGH JUDGE Svn APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26442/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER’S FATHER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 04.01.2019.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 17.12.2012.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

21.01.2014 AND THE LOCATION SKETCH SHOWING THE PETITIONER’S LAND AND THE LAMP POSTS.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2002 IN SLP (CIVIL) NO.8519 OF 2006.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.05.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. L6-55841/09 DATED 17.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.