Land encroachment requires proper legal procedure; relief sought against unlawful construction denied due to statutory compliance.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the illegal encroachment made by the 3^rd respondent Panchayat upon the property of the petitioner for constructing a Panchayat road, without acquiring the land in accordance with law or obtaining free consent or surrender of the land from the petitioner.

2. When the matter came up for consideration on 29.09.2020 an interim order was passed by this Court restraining the 3^rd respondent from trespassing and constructing any road upon the property of the petitioner covered by Exts.P1 and P2 and the same was extended until further orders, as per order dated 30.10.2020.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent stating that the road in question is a mud road, which is included in the asset register of the respondent Panchayat from 2011 onwards and that about 19 families are using the above mud road to reach ELA main road. Thereupon the Panchayat Administrative Committee took a decision to concrete the above said road. Consequently the work was included in the Mahathma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and administrative sanction was also obtained. Thereafter the concreting work of the mud road was completed from 12.09.2020 to 29.09.2020.

Taking into consideration the fact that the road in question is in now part of the asset register and the concreting work has already been over as early as in 2020, I am of the view that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the inclusion of the said road in the asset register, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court against the same as held by this Court in Kurian Paul v.

Inspector of Police, Puthukkad [2023 (2) KHC 275] .

Sd/-