SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
SREEKUMAR S – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 36625 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.K.SAJI, SMT.MAYAMOL T.S., SMT.G.R.MANJU
For the Respondents: SHRI.VINCENT JOSEPH, SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA)

Competence to address encroachment on puramboke land is vested in the Tahsildar (L.R.) rather than the Village Officer.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The judgment relates to trespass and the authority responsible for addressing such grievances under local land law. Facts of the Case: The petitioner claimed trespass by the 6th respondent into puramboke land, requesting removal via a representation to the Village Officer.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the Village Officer incompetent to address the claim, directing the petitioner to approach the Tahsildar (L.R.) instead.

Issues: The primary question was the authority’s competence to handle the alleged encroachment.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the Tahsildar (L.R.) is the appropriate authority for such representation, ensuring all affected parties are heard and decisions made expeditiously.

Result: This Writ Petition will stand disposed of as indicated above.

Table of Content
1. claim of trespass into puramboke land (Para 1)
2. response regarding the nature of the 6th respondent's actions (Para 2)
3. authority on handling representations concerning encroachments (Para 3)
4. directive for action to be taken by competent authority (Para 4)

JUDGMENT The petitioner would allege that the 6th respondent has trespassed into the puramboke land and has made a construction therein, which is sought to be removed, vide Ext.P5 representation, preferred before the 4th respondent/Village Officer.

2. Learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 would submit that there is no construction, whatsoever, made by the 6th respondent. He only brought a mobile petty shop fitted with wheels for conducting a tea shop, which can be removed at any point of time. The same was endorsed by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent/Secretary of the Panchayath concerned.

3. This Court notice that Ext.P5 representation seeks to remove the alleged encroachment, for which the 4th respondent/Village Officer is not competent. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the Tahsildar (L.R.)

concerned is the competent Authority.

4. In the circumstances, the petitioner is given option to prefer a representation before the Tahsildar (L.R.) concerned; and such representation, if any received, will be considered by the Tahsildar (L.R.) in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the all the affected parties. A decision on such representation, if any filed, will be taken expeditiously.

This Writ Petition will stand disposed of as indicated above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top