Jurisdiction over property disputes lies with civil courts, not writ petitions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2025 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the

1^st respondent District Collector to take appropriate action to reinstate the public road and remove obstructions thereon pursuant to Ext.P9 within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2. The averment of the petitioner is that there is a 10 feet public way from Aarattu road to the petitioners’ property covered by Ext.P1 deed for their ingress and egress. There is also vehicular access to the said property. There are other commercial buildings on the northern side of the petitioners’ property, and the occupants of the said buildings were also using the said pathway for vehicular access for conduct of their business. Petitioners would contend that the 10 feet public way lies as Government puramboke and the legal possession vests with the Government. In the year 1991 the 4^th respondent Municipal Corporation by encroaching into the Government puramboke, obstructing the public way, dug a well in order to deny the access of the petitioners and public through it. The 4^th respondent Municipal Corporation has no actual or legal possession with regard to the said puramboke land. Thereupon complaints were filed as evident from Exts.P4 and P5. As action was taken, the petitioners were constrained to approach the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, who issued Ext.P6 order directing the 4^th respondent to take steps to measure out the disputed land on the basis of the survey sketch. Pursuant to the same, Village OfÏcer has submitted Ext.P9 report in which it is found that the grievance raised by the petitioners are genuine, and steps should be taken to rectify the mistakes. Petitioner submits that the 4^th respondent is taking hasty steps to construct a building by encroaching into the public pathway. It is in the said circumstance that the present writ petition has been filed. Petitioners relying on Ext.P11 which is the settlement register of the year 1936 submits that the subject property is an unoccupied dry land as per the revenue records. They also relied on Exts.P13 to P15 which are the informations received as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act and submits that it is admitted that the subject property does not belong to the 4^th respondent.

3. A detailed counter afÏdavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent Government contending that as per the records maintained in Kannur-I Village the adjacent property of the petitioners belongs to Kannur Municipal Corporation which lies in Sy.No.53 of Kannur-I Village. It is true that the municipal land was used by the petitioners for ingress and egress to the above said property since there was no compound wall for municipal land initially. And as per the survey records maintained by the Revenue authorities there is no such 10 feet public way in the municipal land in R.S.53 of Kannur-I Village. Since the Municipal land was like a ground earlier anybody could have free access, and later Municipal authority constructed a compound wall to protect their properties. On verification of the revenue records, no encroachment was found in any Government puramboke land. Since there was no unauthorised occupation by the Municipal Corporation, provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act could not be invoked by the authorities, and since the land belongs to the Kannur Municipal Corporation they have every right to undertake construction in the said land.

4. A detailed counter afÏdavit has been filed by the 4th respondent Municipal Corporation contending that the petitioners have no manner of right to claim the way through the property of the Corporation especially when there is another concrete public way having 1.5 metres width on the eastern side of the property of the petitioners whi