The petitioners claim to be owners of properties in Thikkodi Village of Calicut district. They have obtained the properties under valid title deeds. According to them they are in possession and enjoyment of the properties as well as the improvements standing thereon. The properties abut a natural water channel by name 'Avithodu' on the western side. The State Government has constructed a retention wall separating the thodu from the properties of the petitioners. There are coconut palms standing in the properties. According to the petitioners the coconut palms are aged 70 to 75 years. They have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P12 auction notice issued by the third respondent proposing to conduct an auction to collect the usufructs from 117 coconut palms standing in the property of the panchayat. Quotations are invited by Ext.P12 from private parties for the said purpose. The auction period is up to 31.3.2015. The allegation of the petitioners is that, their coconut palms are included in Ext.P12 notice and are proposed to be auctioned out to third parties. It is alleged that no notice has been issued to them. 2. According to Dr.George Abraham who appears for the petitioners, as per Sub-Section (4) of Section 218 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the 'Act' for short) the panchayat is entitled to collect usufructs from properties vested in it. In the present case, the coconut palms of the petitioners are standing in the properties of the petitioners obtained as per title deeds produced in the writ petition. It is stated that before dispossessing the petitioners of the coconut palms, a notice ought to have been issued. Reliance is also placed on the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Encroachment and Imposition & Recovery of Penalty for Unauthorised Occupation) Rules, 1996 (the 'Rules' for short) to contend that eviction of persons who are in unauthorised occupation of land belonging to the Panchayat can only be pursued in accordance with the procedure stipulated by Rule 5 of the said Rules. Therefore, according to the counsel, Ext.P12 is liable to be interdicted by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution.
3. This petition is posted before me for admission. A perusal of Ext.P12 shows that, what is proposed to be conducted is the auction of 117 coconut palms that are standing on land vested in the Panchayat under Section 218 of the Act. The question as to whether the coconut palms are actually standing in the property of the petitioners or on land vested in the panchayat as stated in Ext.P12 is a question of fact that cannot be adjudicated within the limits of the summary jurisdiction exercised by me under Art.226 of the Constitution. In order to claim rights over the coconut palms that are the subject matter of public auction notified by Ext.P12 the petitioners would have to first establish that the coconut palms are standing in their properties and that they have ownership rights over the same. Ext.P12 does not evidence any attempt to dispossess the petitioners of any land encroached upon by them. Therefore the Rules referred to by the petitioners have no application. The Panchayat in the present case asserts that the coconut palms are located on lands vested in it under Section 218 of the Act. If the said assertion is wrong the petitioners would have to question that in appropriate civil proceedings to be instituted before the Court having jurisdiction over the property. I am not satisfied that any interference with Ext.P12 is either called for or necessary in the above circumstances. This writ petition is therefore dismissed, but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to establish their ownership over the disputed coconut palms before the appropriate Civil Court.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge