The court reaffirmed that river puramboke land is non-assignable and encroachments must be evicted under the applicable statutory provisions, while also emphasizing the importance of locus standi in legal disputes.

P.M. MANOJ, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WP(C) No. 15556 of 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2025

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is preferred for a direction to the 1^st respondent to conduct an inquiry into the alleged illegal manipulation of revenue records made in favour of the 6^th respondent in Survey No. 154/1, Block No. IV, Kadapra Village, Thiruvalla Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. It further seeks a direction to the 5^th respondent to evict the encroachment and recover the legally permissible penalty and dues for the illegal occupation of Panchayat land.

2. It is the Petitioner's case that he is an immediate neighbour of the 6th Respondent, who is alleged to be in possession of more than 35 cents of river puramboke land in Survey No. 154, Block No. IV of Kadapra Village. Subsequently, the 6^th respondent secured the said property by constructing a permanent masonry wall around it. According to the Petitioner, this situation creates significant hardship to the surrounding residents. It is further submitted that the property obstructs a public kadavu (bathing/access point) from which government boat services operate. Moreover, the area lies immediately in front of the finishing point of the Neerattupuram Onam Boat Race, a location customarily used by the public to view the boat race and for other related ancillary activities of the local residents. It is further stated that, based on a complaint preferred by nearby residents, a report was obtained from the Village Officer, as evidenced by Exhibit P1, which seeks intervention to demolish the compound wall. Similarly, another immediate neighbour, Dr. A.V. Jacob, also preferred a complaint before the 3^rd respondent, with further complaints, as evidenced by Exhibits P2 and P3, having been submitted to the Tahsildar.

3. The further allegation of the petitioner is that the District Panchayat has mooted a plan to construct a bridge to replace the ferryman in the Kadavu and give road access to the area, which is otherwise completely isolated from the main road by the river. There are other plans with respect to the construction of a water stadium at the finishing point of the Neerattupuram boat race. Due to the alleged encroachment by the 6^th respondent, these projects have come to a standstill. Accordingly, the District Panchayat also preferred a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvalla.

4. In the light of these complaints, an enquiry was conducted, and a survey of the puramboke land was carried out by the surveyor attached to the 3^rd respondent. A consequential report, dated 18.01.2019 and evidenced by Exhibit P4, was prepared. However, the report shows that four files pertaining to this complaint had been closed by the 3^rd respondent. The specific complaint raised by Dr. A.V. Jacob was that even the assignment of 8 cents of land in favour of the 6^th respondent was not done after due process, as the assignment lacked the back records of LA No. 112/1969. Furthermore, it is clarified that the mutation was issued pursuant to a direction from the Survey Director dated 10.11.1999, an authority who lacks the power to assign land under any extant law. It is also submitted that the 6^th respondent filed a suit for injunction before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla, claiming certain properties belonging to the Petitioner and his relatives. This action is alleged to be an attempt to pressurize the Petitioner into withdrawing the prosecution steps for evicting the 6^th respondent.

5. It is further stated that Respondents 3, 4,