Government eviction of property encroachers requires adherence to statutory provisions, pending civil disputes affect such interventions.

The petitioner claims that he is in possession of a property covered by Ext.P1 document. The sketch of the property is produced as Ext.P2. It is contended that the eastern boundary of the portion marked as ‘4’ is Kottarakkara - Thiruvananthapuram M.C. Road. The portion marked as ‘3’ belongs to one Abdulkhadar Kunju and his son Muhammed Rafi, respondent Nos.6 and 7 respectively. According to the petitioner, the portion marked as ‘2’ is a sarkar puramboke and the same has got an extent of three cents. The petitioner also claims that the contesting respondents trespassed into the property into a portion marked as ‘2’ and also into the portion of the petitioner’s property beyond measurement

7.7 in the sketch. Since, according to the petitioner the encroachment is into the Government Puramboke, the petitioner approached various authorities requesting them to take immediate action for evicting the encroachments in the Government property. He has approached this Court with a prayer to measure out and demarcate the property as mentioned in Exts.P18 and P21 and direct the respondents to remove all encroachments.

2.Respondent No.6 has filed a counter affidavit in which it is specifically stated that the respondent Panchayath was directed to demarcate the property with the assistance of Taluk Surveyor with notice to both parties. The Taluk Surveyor had thereafter intimated that the further measurements of the property would be taken after notice to both parties and the steps in this regard were awaited. It is also pointed out that if there is an encroachment of the Government property the action which should be taken by the Revenue Department under the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act . Though the notice to respondent Nos.7 and 8 was served they have not filed any counter affidavit in the present writ petition.

3.I have heard Sri.B.Krishna Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Sri.N.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 Panchayat and Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8.

4.I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar.

5.Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8 submits that respondent Nos.7 and 8 have already approached the Munsiff Court, Punalur by filing O.S.No.322 of 2015 which is the suit for declaration and possession. Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.322 of 2015 is placed on record for perusal of this Court.

6.The perusal of the plaint shows that essentially the suit is against the State of Kerala and others in which the petitioner has sought for declaration of title and also injunction against the defendants and from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. As far as the claim of the petitioner for demarcation on the property of the petitioner qua the respondent Nos.7 and 8 concerned, it is necessarily for the petitioner to workout the similar remedy in an appropriately constituted suit for fixation of boundary. Be that as it may. As far as the directions sought for evicting the encroachment from the Government property, it is to be noted that O.S.No.322 of 2015 is already pending. At any rate no direction could be issued to the Government to evict respondent Nos.7 and 8 from the property either during the pendency of the civil suit nor otherwise especially since it is the prerogative of the Government to initiate appropriate sections under the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act without which, the encroachers over the property cannot be evicted.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner as well as for the respondents to ventilate their grievance before the civil court.