The Tahsildar must consider the implications of local governance laws before enforcing land conservancy measures against local bodies.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Jestin Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

2. The Kottangal Grama Panchayat and its Secretary are the petitioners in this writ petition. They have instituted the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P6 order issued by the 2^nd respondent, Tahsildar, under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act , 1957. By the aforementioned order, the petitioners have been directed to vacate the illegal encroachment in the construction in resurvey No. 241/7, having an extent of 1.44 ares, being the ‘Thodu Puramboke’.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an order in the nature of Ext.P6 could not have been issued by the Tahsildar, since the ‘Thodu Puramboke’ is vested in the Panchayat, with reference to the provisions of Section 218 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994.

4. However, the learned Government Pleader seeks to rely on the judgment of this Court in Anish v. Distict Collector [ 2012 (2) KLT 7 ], which held that even with reference to the provisions of Section 218 , the steps under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act could be initiated. 5. In my opinion, the question as to whether the properties having been vested under Section 218 , the provisions of the could be initiated against the Panchayat has not been addressed by the Tahsildar while issuing the order in Ext.P6. This Court also takes note of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of this Court in Anish (supra) was not with reference to a claim made by the Panchayat but with reference to proceedings taken against an individual, who claimed that the provisions of the could not be initiated since the property in question was ‘Thodu Puramboke’ vested with the Panchayat under the Panchayat Raj Act.

6. In such circumstances, since the issue as to whether, in view of the provisions of Section 218 of the Panchayat Raj Act, the steps under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act could be initiated against the petitioner has not been considered by the Tahsildar, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration from the hands of the Tahsildar.

Resultantly, this writ petition will stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P6. The Tahsildar, the 2^nd respondent herein, will reconsider the matter, extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, with specific reference to the provisions of the act, as well as the judgment of this Court in Anish (supra) within a period of four months from today.

Sd/-