The court upheld the statutory presumption of the asset register and directed removal of obstructions while allowing the petitioner to pursue civil remedies.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider Ext.P5 and to refrain from doing construction activity by encroaching into the property of the petitioner situated in survey No.962/1/16 of Kulathupuzha Village. Petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs.

2. The specific grievance raised by the petitioner is that earlier respondents 2 and 3 attempted to encroach upon the property of the petitioner. Thereupon Ext.P5 representation was filed. Petitioner submits that the property is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, obtained as per Exts.P1 and P2 title deeds and is paying land tax. Later an attempt was made by the additional 4^th respondent to encroach upon this property. It is in the said circumstance that the present writ petition has been filed.

3. A detailed statement has been filed by the additional

4^th respondent, wherein it is stated that the road in question is included in the asset register of the panchayat as evident from Annexure-R4(a) and as per the entry in the asset register, the total length of the road is 350 metres and width is 3 metres. It is also stated that the said road is in existence for more than 20 years and a portion of the road was concreted using panchayat fund and as regard the remaining unpaved portion of the road, steps were taken to include in the annual plan for the year 2024- 2025. Thereafter tender notification was issued and work was awarded to a contractor. Thereupon obstructions were made by the petitioner alleging encroachment. It further stated that the petitioner was shown the measurement as per Ext.P4 survey sketch and as a result of an actual site verification, the petitioner was satisfied that no portion of his property has been encroached upon. Thereafter the project was completed without any obstruction.

4. This Court in Kurian Paul v. Inspector of Police, Puthukkad , 2023 (2) KHC 275 has held as follows: “15. The Asset Register of the Panchayat being a statutory document maintained in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Accounts) Rules, 2011, the entries therein have to be presumed to be correct unless it is established that the same are incorrect. 16. O.S. No. 312 of 2003 filed by the petitioner for declaration of easement by prescription over the pathway was dismissed by the Court by Ext. P9 judgment dated 21/08/2004 on the ground that his right then was inchoate. Since the road is included in the Asset Register of the Panchayat, there is presumption regarding the vesting of road in the Panchayat consequent to the entries therein, which is rebuttable. Accordingly, it is for the respondents 5 to 7 to establish in appropriate proceedings that the entries are wrong and made without any legal sanction. By virtue of the entries made in Ext.P4 Asset Register, there is conferment of the rights over the road in favour of the Panchayat and the respondents 5 to 7 cannot obstruct the access of the petitioner to the road. S.272 of the K P R Act provides that all roads vested in or maintained by a Panchayat shall be open to the use and enjoyment of all persons. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to remove all obstructions on the northern side of the petitioner's property abutting the road shown as item No.212 in Ext. P4 Asset Register forthwith. The observations herein and the direction issued will not impede any remedy available to respondents 5 to 7 in civil laws.”

Admittedly the subject property is included in the asset register of the local authority as evident from Ext.R4(a). As held by this Court in Kurian Paul’s case cited supra it is for the petitioner to challenge the same by filing suit before the appropriate court. Leaving open such right of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-