Encroachments on land must be addressed as per the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, ensuring compliance with judicial directives.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 notice issued by the respondent-Municipality. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.27858 of 2017 challenging the notice issued by the respondent-Municipality, which was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 16.11.2020 with the following directions:

“6. As far as the notice issued to Sri. Dileep which is challenged in his writ petition, I am of the view that the notice is legally unsustainable. If the puramboke land has been encroached, the Secretary of the Municipality can only invoke proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act not under the Kerala Municipality Act . It is only after passing the final orders under the , the encroacher can be evicted. If any construction within the land legally owned, of course, the Municipality can initiate proceedings under Sec. 406 of the . However, in the counter affidavit as well as in the writ petition filed by Dr. Benny Augustine it is stated that Sri. Dileep has encroached upon the puramboke land and constructed a residential building. Therefore, the removal of encroachment can be only in accordance with the . Accordingly, Ext.P3 notice, challenged in the writ petition filed by Dileep is set aside. The Municipality shall proceed in accordance with the Land Conservancy Act, if the Municipality is of the view that the puramboke land has been encroached by Sri. Dileep by extending his residential building.

2. As per the said judgment, proceedings have to be initiated invoking the powers under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act , 1957 and appropriate directions were issued to the respondent-Municipality. Thereafter Ext.P4 notice was issued, wherein it is noted that WP(C) No.27858 of 2017 has been dismissed by this Court and, therefore, further proceedings were initiated to remove the encroachments. A perusal of Ext.P4 would reveal that the Secretary of the Municipality has totally misconstrued the directions issued in Ext.P3 especially when the writ petition has not been dismissed, but a direction was issued to proceed as per the provisions of the , if there is any encroachment upon the purambokku land.

3. The learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submits that due to the encroachment made, the only way to the ingress and egress to the property of the 2^nd respondent has been blocked and, therefore, appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent-Municipality to take action in this regard to remove the encroachment.

Taking into account the fact that Ext.P4 notice is not in accordance with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P4, but leaving open the right of the respondent-Municipality to take appropriate action in accordance with law, as directed in Ext.P3 judgment, with notice to the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent. The respondent-Municipality shall seek the assistance of the 3^rd respondent, if any survey of demarcation is required for finding out the encroachment. If any such request is made, the Officers of the 3^rd respondent shall give prompt assistance to the 1^st respondent in this regard.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-