The judgment reinforces the duty of authorities to prevent encroachments on government properties, establishing the need for diligent oversight.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 25^th day of September, 2025 NITIN JAMDAR, C.J.

This petition is filed making a grievance that Respondent No.6, an individual, has encroached upon the Government property, a river bank, and has constructed an unauthorized road. A series of orders have been passed in this petition, directing the authorities to examine the issue and submit their reports.

2. Heard Mr. Jinson Ouseph, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Geen T. Mathew, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6, Mr. Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and Ms. Thushara James, learned Senior Government Pleader for the State.

3. On 30 January 2025, notices were issued to the Respondents. Meanwhile, the statutory authorities were directed to examine the matter and, if necessary, take appropriate action. On 24 March 2025, the learned Senior Government Pleader has placed on record a communication addressed by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to the Tahsildar stating that the encroachment has been removed and the original position has been restored. After verifying the position, the Tahsildar was directed to file an affidavit. On 8 July 2025, the Tahsildar filed an affidavit stating that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat reported that the work on the encroached land has been stopped, the illegal construction demolished, and the land restored to its original position.

4. When the matter was taken up on 8 July 2025, we again directed the District Collector to call for a report from the Tahsildar. On 2 August 2025, the District Collector filed an additional counter affidavit stating that the alleged encroachment and construction of the unauthorized road by Respondent No.6 was carried out independently, without any collusion by the authorities. The affidavit further stated that the area was not commonly used, and therefore, the authorities did not regularly inspect it. However, as soon as the matter was brought to the notice of the authorities, immediate steps were taken. It was stated that the private land adjoining the river on which the encroachment occurred, is owned by Respondent No.6. The Grama Panchayat had constructed a protective stone wall along the riverbank. Respondent No.6 unlawfully built a road and a compound wall for his property on the top of this protective wall. Upon discovery of the encroachment, the officials took immediate and urgent steps to restore the area. The District Collector on affidavit asserted that the position has now been restored. The private Respondent also filed a counter affidavit stating that he is the owner of the property located south of the river and that there was an existing pathway within the property.

5. The Petitioner thereafter filed additional documents on record stating that the position is not yet restored. Again, we directed the District Collector to file an additional counter affidavit. The District Collector has filed a further affidavit stating as under:

“3. It is humbly submitted that the present re-survey records in the subject land were prepared in the year 1974 and the alleged road was not part of the river puramboke. It is further submitted that the road is not unauthorized but is actually a private property in terms of the revenue records. The road falls within survey No. 397/3 of Block 36. The road is under regular use by many people residing in the area and the 6^th respondent holds title over said the property as well. The encroachment on the road, measuring 0.0103 hectors was evicted by the Secretary of Puthussery Grama Panchayath in the first phase of eviction itself. Later, a