The court established that a petitioner must come with clean hands when seeking equitable relief, and the legality of encroachments requires thorough investigation.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;

“(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs, directions or Orders commanding the 2^nd Respondent to pursue further effective proceedings by issuing confirmation Order and causing demolition of the unauthorised structures erected by Respondents 3 and 4 in the property covered by Exhibit-P1 Sale Deed, and take the proceedings commenced by Exhibit-P4 Provisional Order under section 235W of The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 to its legal and logical conclusion, as mandated by law;

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs, directions or Orders commanding the 2^nd Respondent to pursue further proceedings against the unauthorised constructions by Respondents 3 and 4, dehors Exhibit-P7 Notice, and pursue emergent action to stop further unauthorised constructions by them encroaching into petitioner's property covered by Exhibit-P1 Sale Deed”.

2. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the father of the petitioner, namely, Late T.M Joseph, obtained 53 cents of property in survey No.19/1 of Pallivasal village of Devikulam Taluk by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.3247/1996 dated 06.11.1996 of SRO Devikulam. Later, the property was mutated in his name as per the Thandaper No.2563 of Pallivasal Village. The relevant page of the mutation register showing remittance of land tax dated 28.01.1997 by the father of the petitioner is produced as Ext.P2 in the writ petition.

2.1. The petitioner further pleads that on the death of his father, the property devolved upon the petitioner and his two siblings and also his niece, who is the daughter of a deceased sister of the petitioner. The petitioner and the other co-owners are permanently settled outside Kerala, and therefore, they engaged a power of attorney holder to take care of the property. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4, who are the natives of Munnar and politically influential persons, encroached on the portion of the aforesaid 53 cents of property and put up structures therein. The power of attorney holder of the petitioner made complaints to the Police and also to the Secretary of the 1^st respondent Pallivasal Grama Panchayat, to which he was issued with Ext.P3 receipt dated 13.01.2023. On receipt of the said complaint, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P4 order dated 20.03.2023 under Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994. In that order, the 2^nd respondent made a reference to a public interest litigation filed by an organisation, ‘One Earth One Life’, before this Court against all the Local Self-Government Institutions in Devikulam Taluk and nearby localities of Idukki district. But the property covered in Ext.P1 sale deed is not involved in that litigation. Ext.P4 order directs demolition of unauthorised construction carried out by the 3^rd respondent by encroaching on the property of the petitioner.

2.2. Since the respondents 3 and 4 continued the unauthorised construction, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 03.11.2023 through his power of attorney holder before the 2^nd respondent. Instead of pursuing Ext.P4 provisional order, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P7 notice dated 30.01.2024 to the power of attorney holder of the petitioner, stating that in order to solve the boundary dispute, the petitioner can approach the revenue department. Under those circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court with the writ petition.

2.3. On 12.06.2024, when his writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice to respondents 3 and 4 by s