A petition for mandamus regarding alleged encroachment on public land is not maintainable when an official revenue inspection report categorically concludes that no encroachment exists and the local authority has ratified the construction by assigning it a building number and collecting property tax.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to initiate appropriate action against the 1^st respondent for encroaching on to the PWD road and making constructions therein. A further direction is sought to cancel the building permit issued to the 1^st respondent, without considering Ext.P1 complaint filed by the petitioner.

2. Petitioner claims to be a neighbour of the 1^st respondent.

He alleges that the 1^st respondent has a property situated on the side of the Koothattukulam - Piravom road, and the said respondent had encroached upon the PWD land and commenced construction of a multi-storied building pursuant to the building permit issued by the Panchayath. According to the petitioner, the permit has been issued due to external factors and alleges that due to the encroachment and construction of the building, the public road, has become narrow, resulting in several accidents. It is further alleged that on 02.03.2013, the petitioner filed a complaint to the 2nd respondent, pointing out the encroachment and the illegal construction. Despite receipt of the said complaint, no action has been initiated, apparently on account of the influence wield by the 1^st respondent. It is in such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the reliefs sought earlier.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent, pointing out that the property is jointly owned by him and his wife and in the absence of his wife, the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of a necessary party. It is further stated that the 1^st respondent and his wife had purchased an extent of 28 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.685/3B in Koothattukulam Village from a person by the name of Rajappan, and thereafter, in connection with the construction of a canal, as part of the Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project, the level of Kuthattukulam – Piravom road had to be lowered and the 1^st respondent's property fell on a higher level than the road thereby requiring a retaining/protection wall, which was constructed by the Government. Subsequently, after purchase of the property, the said retention wall had to be demolished and since it was constructed by the Government, permission was sought for and an agreement was also entered into as per Ext.R1(a). Permissions were also obtained for the construction of a commercial building after obtaining a permit and an approved plan as per Ext.R1(b). The 1^st respondent further asserted that the building has been constructed without any violation, and the same is in compliance with the Building Rules and is solely the property of the 1^st respondent. It is also pointed out that, as per the report of the Village Officer, produced as Ext.R1(c), the construction has not encroached into the PWD property.

4. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties including the 1^st respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent relied upon Ext.R1(c) and pointed out that pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner, the Village Officer conducted an inspection and identified that there was no encroachment of any nature into the PWD property. It was also submitted that, after completing construction of the building, the Koothattukulam Grama Panchayath has even numbered the building and collected property tax on the said building. It was submitted that the entire complaint, as well as the writ petition, were filed without any basis and with ulterior purposes.

6. On a consideration of the rival contentions, it is noticed that pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner, the Village Officer had conducted a detailed verification of the property alle